The Primacy of Consciousness

The fundamental nature of reality is actually consciousness. In his documentary Peter Russell explores the reasons why consciousness may be the fundamental essence of the Universe. Many have made such claims from metaphysical perspectives, but the possibility has always been ignored by the scientific community. In this talk, he discusses the problems the materialist scientific world view has with consciousness and proposes an alternative world view which, rather than contradicting science, makes new sense of much of modern physics. He presents a reasoned argument that shows how they are pointing towards the one thing science has always avoided considering - the primary nature of consciousness.

This documentary basically seeks answers for these questions: What is consciousness? How could consciousness arise from matter? Paradigm shifts in science. The materialist meta paradigm. A new meta paradigm. Consciousness is in everything. Everything is in consciousness. Matter is a mental construct. Relativity and light's point of view. Light lies beyond space, time and matter. Photons and the quantum of action. Parallels between light and consciousness. Consciousness as the fundamental reality. The mystical experience of consciousness. Who am I? What is the self? The meeting of science and spirit.

426 Comments / User Reviews

But this is just plain old Idealist philosophy. There is nothing essentially new. Perhaps he has presented a new slant toward subjectivistic philosophy--that's all. The very same subjectivistic ideas have been preached during centuries but been refuted by science. Russell says that the outer world is totally unknown, like a black box that we cannot know anything about--the Kantian noumenon. Allegedly, the only thing we know is our conscious experiences. But this is false. Science knows very much about the "black box" that is matter. It can explain our sensory experiences as generated by atomic and molecular factors. So, for instance, our sense of heat is generated by molecular movements. Today we understand it very well, unlike in Kant's days. A blind physicist can determine the colour of an object by investigating its chemical and structural properties. Today we comprehend the causal factors in material objects that generate our sensory experiences. Contrary to what Immanuel Kant believed, they are not subjectively constructed from something totally unknown. Subjectivistic transcendental Idealism has long since been refuted.

It is surprising that philosophers can continue peddling dead ideas, and yet people are buying into it. So there must be something to it--there seems to be a longing for a spiritual conception of the world. We cannot rule out that a subjective comprehension of life, i.e. a religious worldview, is essential to human beings--for our well-being and for social cohesion, etc. So it probably has to do with our instinctual foundation. We are drawn to such conceptions like moths to the flame.

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park, and when you choose to go it you think it's real, cause that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down, and round and round, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud. And it's fun, for awhile. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question- 'is this real? or is this just a ride?' And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say 'hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever. Because, this is just a ride.' And we, kill those people. '...shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my bank account, and my family! This has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok... But it doesn't matter *because* it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice, no effort, no work, no job, no savings of money- a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy bigger guns, close yourself off...the eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride: take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing, and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and *we can explore space*, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace."

I would just love it if anyone of these comments calling the video bull**** could also provide /a single scientific counter-argument/. Calling something false and then supplying totally uncredible anecdotes, no matter how colorful or insulting your language may be, is /meaningless/. Anyone who can watch this video with critical thinking is going to read your comment with the same skepticism.

Back up your opinions and arguments. This is science, theories are best proven by counter-arguments continuously failing to invalidate them.

Where's the experiment we can do to try and falsify the idea that consciousness is "the fundamental nature of reality"? Is any of this testable? Does it model any sort of natural phenomenon? That's science.

People who prefer pseudo-science just like to use scientific-sounding words and mimic the appearance of science. But they don't follow the scientific method, their proposals aren't falsifiable, and when they get called out on it, these charlatans cry their tears and claim everyone's being unfair and they haven't disproved their ideas and on and on and on.

Rampage
- 08/15/2013 at 21:05

That's like saying god exists because no one has shown he doesn't. If something is asserted like "god exists", or a "soul exists" etc, than the person or persons asserting such a large claim must have reasons to believe, and generally the larger the claim the larger the reasons to believe. In other words if I assert a spaghetti monster created the earth and my reasons are because I had a dream about it, do you think my claim is justified by its premise? No obviously not. That's not to say everyone's reasons to believe are all weak and unjustified, but I remain skeptical as I have NEVER observed a good reason to believe anything which we can test, nor has anyone else.

If you believe without good reasons fine, but if you assert that belief in public be ready to be torn apart by thinkers and skeptics.

Corfugrl
- 02/14/2013 at 18:54

What are we supposed to do with this information in terms of how to operate in life? if everything is a delusion then what? if our experiences are not real, then what? Is my very own body that needs action and energy to move a delusion of my own mind?? Very interesting don't get me wrong. But how do I use this?

I would suggest this is difficult to argue. An honest critique on the notion of separation between science & spirituality; Putting forth the undeniable truth of interconnectedness of all things. This is the Corpus Callosum of Existentialism in an easy to digest format for all thinking observers. *****'s

So much bullshit and misinformation in this programme I can't even begin. Peter Russell does have some comedy value I must say, this middle aged guy has created a whole lecture about idea's that I had when I was about 14, haha.. good to be reminded how consciousness can change with time.

At minute 4 Russell states that "consciousness is the only absolute certainty". This is false. Consciousness is something that the brain generates. Since this seems to be the basis for his entire argument we can stop watching right there.

If the brain generates consciousness, then we can be at least certain that the illusion exists. Either an illusion exists or consciousness exists, but either way something exists. I don't see your point.
EDIT: I decided not to watch the documentary because it looked like a waste of time from the rest of the comments, but I think you say "we can stop watching" for the wrong reasons.

Iainstewartsmith
- 08/20/2012 at 22:58

Since you stopped watching right there, you obviously missed how he goes further to say that it isn't the brain or any physical matter that generates consciousness, but consciousness that manifests itself as physical forms. That is the genius behind this speech and it is a shame you missed out.

Tor
- 02/03/2013 at 15:52

only a consciousness can state something, right?. only a consciousness can discuss what is certain, right? without consciousness, there isnt anything particular, thing just is. that cosnciousness cannot state anything outside the subjective, right? THINK STRAIGHT!

it`s not false. a consciousness cannot know or experience anything sure, other than that it itself IS. everything else in the world is "seen" just because you are there to see it. without you, then what?

and how do you know about consciousness when even the foremost scientists doesnt? did you know that a scientist (thousands of scientists has done their experiments over and over and over - researc it!) who research in quantum levels cant watch his experiments because a consciousness watching affects?

and did you know that the unconsciousness is muuch bigger than your day-to-day consciousness, who you think you are?

watch your own thoughts. try to see how long you can sit on a chair and not think. then you will see it is impossible. then ask yourself: where does these thoughts come from? and you`ill see that they are not you. they are your mind. a tool. your consciousness, or AWARENESS, lays beyoond. the awereness makes it possible to watch feelings and thoughts and yourself

Mad Hare
- 07/13/2012 at 16:19

Meh. Kind of introduction to (idealist branch of) phenomenology, but wrapped up in trendy pseudo-scientific mysticism. Russel seems to be merely a sort of new age snake oil salesman.

The lecture is quite the ultimate anthropomorphizing of the universe. There's no proof or even reason why things like matter & bacteria should have consciousness or traces of it. Russel implies this with no real basis, evidence or even reasoning. Just because we and some other animals have it doesn't mean that other things should have it. That's a non sequitur.

Life as an algorithmic process does not waste energy on things it doesn't need. Just like not all living beings need nervous systems, not all living beings need a consciousness.

Basically he's taking a human feature (an evolutionary product shared also by some other animals but very prominent in humans) and elevating it to some mystical ultimate position in the universe. If tigers had made this lecture, they might have argued that everything in the universe must have at least the vaguest trace of stripes and sharp claws!

And now, if you object and say that he does give the Cartesian argument, that everything "in existence" must be in consciousness. Yes, but if we do not accept anything outside the consciousness, all that "argument building" he's supposedly making about the physical nature of the world contributes absolutely nothing. If, on the other hand, we accept the existence of physical reality, atoms, physical constants etc., we can then also accept the Neo-Darwinist explanation of life (algorithmic process) and consciousness (one evolutionary product among others).

And it doesn't help his case that there are some clear blunders, like debunked urban myths (Eskimo words for snow), disputed quotations etc. Just shows how badly he's done his research.

For a much better and sober contemporary account of the same topic, try Daniel C. Dennett's book Consciousness Explained (1991).

Many of the same conclusions I have come to by always looking for the simplest explanation of things regardless of how strange or unorthodox. Granted Peter draws those conclusions far more eloquently than I think I could have done. Bravo.

Rocks=mind. Mind=mind. All=mind. Beats me how any conscious physicist could have a problem with that. Great subject, so -- somebody give these people some cash so they can share their ideas without dragging us through sad theatres obliging us to stare at the same poorly lit screen as the audience co-suffering their Powerpointy eyestrain and claustrophobia? The development of technology has a purpose and if it isn't to save our senses from bumbly old lecture hall DIY efforts then why don't we pack it all back in its boxes and go live back in caves. Not asking here for some kind of History Channel jackass production values -- just a little respect for progress. But um somebody said .. any vulgar occupation with f o r m would have been antithetical to sincerity of ideas and content. Move on?

ps. the reason for all the smuggins audience chuckling (".. how do i know you're not a bunch of zombies who just happen to laugh in the right places?" ha) is that they are enjoying they imagine that special recognition deigned by religious sect leaders on their faithful --- confirmation of their cozily assumed ideologial 'superiority'. So in the interests of objective argument mightn't the makers have done better to leave them on the cutting room floor?

Very shrewd no non-sense and tightly wound demonstration. I loved the idea C as the constant ratio of manifestation of space time. Totally fits with Special Relativity even when looking at time dilation.
One thing was left aside though it seems: what about our consciousness of our own limbs and body? Are they too a product of the perception manufactured in our brain? if I close my eyes I can choose to focus my consciousness on any part of my body and 'feel' it. Am I perceiving those parts when they are actually something else? Weird thing is some people who are amputated claim they can still feel their limb...
Wish that aspect had been covered as well.
Really enjoyed the whole Show and the elegance of the proposed system.

We are alive -- what does that mean? To so many of us it seems like something to be taken as an emotional experience rather than a coldly logical one. There's a disconnect there, because feelings can't be described; they can only be felt. There is no science that can explain emotion because only the emotion itself is perfectly descriptive of itself.

This was not an explanation of consciousness, but rather a new hiding spot for the god of the gaps (who recently lost his job as the initiator of the big bang).
So, before accepting this new mega shift, I'll just wait for the missing ingredient EVIDENCE, which never seems to show up in quests to make god real.

Extremely to the point and easy to understand documentary! Light, matter, space, time, and the conscious of action of photons to atoms to molecules to small organisms to fish to dogs to man. It all makes sense. A+

Peter Russell is a lot like Alan w Watts. Except Alan would always go in so many directions, where as Peter seems to stay focused on topic with slides and just flow like water easily esplaining what Alan Watts and all the people of Mind were trying to tell us.

BRAVO to this man. Him coming from a Physics upringing really helped to keep things tight and on track, while trying to explain things that are impossible to put into works.

There is nothing that this man has said that I disagree with when comparing them with Alan Watts and all the other figures Mr Russel references.

dat was a great eye opener.i think 8 s d scientific explanation of GOD.I was once a believer of scince like the richard hawkings explanations but now i think hes d one who s completely DELUSIONAL.Now,i will never be again be confuse with the existence of God .this one nails it.

I'm getting to a point in my own consciousness where it seems that I am a very lowly NPC (for you role-players) in a grand video game conceived by a lesser person than myself....go figure. Maybe now the peons will stage an uprising and defeat the overlord....or maybe GOD (the video gamer) can just hit the reset button, and try again.

I haven't yet the time to watch the video, but clearly, this is about the unified field of pure consciousness, which is the foundation of quantum physics.

What people think is "reality" is really merely their perception of the images of reality...not reality itself. Reality itself is pure energy, pure consciousness...which is beyond the physical senses, which are the exclusive bases of intellectual perception. Reality itself cannot be perceived but only directly experienced. Reality itself is not a matter of perception through the senses but a matter of direct conscious experience...or, consciously BEING, yourself, the reality.

In the same way do you perceive the image of yourself in a mirror...while consciously experiencing, or being yourself the actual reality beyond the mirror. The problem of Man is thinking he is his image in the mirror, having lost awareness of the actual reality of who he really is beyond the mirror. In this delusion, he thinks the images of reality is actual reality itself.

So do many cling to the images of apparent movement, losing awareness of the infinite stillness within all apparent movement. They cling to sounds, without awareness of the reality of silence where all sounds arise and return. They cling to form, without awareness of space without which form cannot exist. They cling to the measurable, ever changing formal contents of consciousness, losing awareness of the immeasurable never-changing reality of pure consciousness.

The reality of the still, silent space of pure consciousness is the essential source where all apparent forms arise and return.

Still, ultimately, there is the Primacy of Spirit-Being...where pure consciousness arises and returns...

This discussion about pure consciousness is like talking about the reality of sunlight. Those who have uncovered eyes do not need the explanation nor proof. And those who are blindfolded-from-birth, not having the direct conscious experience of sunlight (though having so much purely intellectual knowledge of sunlight from reading books in Braille), can never reach the conscious experience by listening to explanations. They can only arrive at the direct conscious experience of sunlight...by choosing to remove their blindfolds, instead of arguing and debating about that which they have no experiential knowledge of. Ironically, the sun shines on all the blindfolded-from-birth who are all experiencing its light...they are simply not conscious of the experience!

The blindfold is attachment to, and consequently becoming confined and limited within, the intellectual mind, which can only perceive the formal contents of consciousness...not consciousness itself! So do I paraphrase the "Little Prince": Only with the heart can one "see" rightly...what is essential is invisible to the intellectual mind."

He gives several historical inaccuracies. For example, Kant being the first to say abou tthe thing in itself ( SO many said it before him!). He skips over important advances. For example, that electorns ARE PARTICLES. this guy should read a few physic books. The presentor is not dynamic. This was made quickly for an ignornat audience. The topic however is extremely important.

IN the context of his use of 'the thing in itself' Kant was indeed the first to use it, considering he is the one who defined it's used in modern history. Peter Russell studied theoretical physics at Cambridge, and I would say this was made for an already somewhat informed audience. In making a presentation, basics that are already understood can be assumed in the interest of making coherent and to the point lecture.

William Alston
- 09/02/2011 at 06:54

There is proof of consciousness: writing! You are reading a string of ideas put together logically by somebody else. Thus observable proof of some thought there!

If we have any consciousness or any godly light in us then why do we follow bad leaders like morons and are greedy and making wars and why are destroying the planet. Maybe we are just a virus due to our lack of consciousness but not conscious of it.

its because we have lived in a society derived from scarcity ,a living thing will do anything to get its survival needs met, but if we lived in a world of abundace you would see our natural state of co-operation, do you see people shooting people and killing for tap water?

Mattfortworth
- 09/02/2011 at 08:23

It's because we have a thing called "choice". The choice to thing of the whole, or of the false "self". The me. The image that we have made "I" into. The tattoos, the job, the network of friends.. Our materialistic cluture tells us to focus on the me instead of the whole. All the while making us more unhappy. Like any drug, it feels satisfactory for a moment, but you'll always need more of it, and eventually, you will move on to the next thing you can consume to try and fill the void that is left from selfish focus.

..or you can choose to focus on others... why? because you realize that no matter what you do, you will die, and the consciousness inside you comes from God. You can ignore this, or explore this.

gsjikwblao
- 03/05/2012 at 20:37

Because we are more influenced, in the initial state of our nature by our individual perspective arising from the processing of information through our five physical senses then we are by a unifying perspective which arises in our convicting conscience. This will change when "Satan" which is a figurative reference to our perception of individual perspective, is cast into the prison by "Jesus Christ" which is a figurative reference to the unifying perspective of an increased conviction of conscience. Our heads are in the "prison" of our hearts when they can no longer escape the influence of our hearts. This will only happen when our hearts evolve into an increased state of motivation, on their way back to the single point of perspective from which they departed in the formation of a necessary diametrically opposed motivation, 13.7 billion years ago. This involves love withdrawing from all those who have been overcome by the necessary deceptive nature of individual perspective, and compressing stressfuly into others who cannot escape the inconveinent influence of their relatively strong convicting consciences. Without a significant conviction of conscience to question their fear-driven reasoning, those who reject this will be completely confident as they do so.
This evolutionary process is one of "natural selection" and is entirely "causation driven". Inasmuch as we can understand that love,which is a binding motivation for consciousness motivated by the destructive nature of individual perspective, generated everything else to form a necessary diametrically opposed motivation, we can understand the new state of mind to be "The kingdom of God".

Christoffer Bubach
- 06/15/2011 at 02:18

I feel like his theories fall through on several points, not sure I will be able to remember them all for this post. If I understand it correctly so far, he seems to think that consciousness is part of everything, but "hitch a ride" sort of inside us because our brains present such good senses and 3d-modeling of the world. How come only organic things show signs of consciousness, and why would it need all this brainpower if it didn't arise from it? Wouldn't a good server with some mics and webcams suddenly become self-aware just because of the consciousness inside "everything"?
Also in the beginning he claims that consciousness itself is not compatible with the current worldview, because it can't be explained and it can't be made of - or arise from - matter.
Says who? This is probably what sits worst with me. Just because something isn't explained doesn't prove that it can never be explained.

to say only organic things only show signs of consciousness is a assumption, it is your eyes ears and brain that is limited by these to sense anything, imagine a blind person arguing that colors do not exist and the universe shows no evidence of physical form only sound it would be easy to see that the person is making that assumption.
the human brain is there to operate our physical body did you know 1/3rd of our brain power is used to capture sight and instantaniously make sense of it , and the rest of our senses use a great deal, then you have memory and the rest this universe is a video game a simulation you are the charactor on the so called screen and your brain and body is built to detect the game , consciousness is the controller but it is the real you that is controlling the you here the you here is a tiny fraction of the full SELF which is god

cynicalitis
- 09/24/2011 at 03:38

Yep! Take anyone of these out and you will fail to boot up.. as they say

gsjikwblao
- 03/05/2012 at 21:24

I have trouble myself understanding what he meant by that. So this may be wrong but I think he was proposing a fundamental nature of consciousness in all matter and not saying that all matter is conscious as we are. Clearly, a grain of sand does not have a collection of five physical senses as we do. However both we and the grain of sand respond to our environment. When the wind blows on the grain of sand it has no "choice" but to respond. We tend to see ourselves as having the capacity to choose but what is "causing" us to make the decisions that we do is itself "causation driven". In this way we can understand that "free will" is an illusion born of our nature. It is no more then a perception. This is not to say that it is not real. A "perception" is very real. It just isn't what we thought it was.
If this is true then it could be said that "causation" which determines all reality and all perception of it, is the most fundamental nature of consciousness. It may be a small step to then consider that the conscious "God" that created everything is "causation". But this mechanical view is not very useful for a race of motivated consciousness occupying individual points of perspective. It is much more useful to understand that "love" through "causation" created everything else to form a necessary diametrically opposed motivation which, through the same "causation" subdues the opposing motivation (individual perspective) in an evolutionary process.
I think he may have been suggesting a new definition of consciousness by defining its most fundamental characteristic at which level we have much in common with everything else. This is because everything, including our "free will" is driven in its development by "causation". This understanding does not elevate the dog terd to the level of human consciousness, it lowers, relative to God, human consciousness to the level of the dog terd.
This may be wrong because I was having a difficult time listening closely because the doc. moved so slowly.

Christoffer Bubach
- 02/08/2013 at 02:49

I agree with that it seems that most of our actions is indeed "causation driven" and that free will mostly or most likely is just an illusion. But we are aware of that! That's the main difference with us from everything else. I mean, sure - we could go on all our lives moving on "autopilot" just following the daily routines and society's rules and pace. But once in a while, mostly when thinking about it, reflecting or focusing - we are aware at a much deeper level. Of our actions, why we took them and maybe even how we could have done otherwise with a different background. This awareness and reflection also makes us tolerant against others, because we can understand why they take other choices in respect of their backgrounds and experiences. If we were computers, this would be like a separate process always keeping a close watch over our actions - judging them, reflecting over them, and even reflecting over the the previous reflection. I'm not so sure this can't continue in an infinite loop - maybe that's just insanity. :)

over the edge
- 04/10/2011 at 22:45

@az
i apologize for my lack of post. life gets in the way of a good time on occasion i will answer your question in depth later today or tomorrow as time permits.
cheers ote

There are some intentional jokes in his presentation, i.e. the quote concerning the death of opponents to new scientific discoveries.

squam555
- 04/24/2011 at 03:26

they are delighted, validated and euphoric. They have experienced personally the concepts russell presents and feel as one having witnessed aliens would feel if the aliens then held a press conference

ruffkutt
- 06/07/2011 at 19:53

They're STONED :-)

jonathan jackward
- 09/07/2011 at 07:24

reptilians, greys, or Nordics?

Mattfortworth
- 09/02/2011 at 08:26

You're missing something. It's called a punchline... He made jokes throughout the presentation.

CapnCanard
- 03/27/2011 at 17:01

Some of the commentators seem to completely misunderstand the wholly engaging and widespread nature of consciousness. It is everything. Our bodies are conscious even if we are not. All the cells of your body are conscious of the actions that are inherent to each cell's purpose, hence if you are unconscious it is because your body is performing some needed functions: sleep, body repair and protection etc etc etc. To narrowly suggest that consciousness can be quantified is an utter display of IGNORANCE and to insist on that narrow view is ARROGANCE. Russell has done a extraordinary job of explaining very simple ideas that have confounded thinkers for centuries. Don't over think the mechanics of consciousness with an eye toward making it fit the preconceived paradigms of science. It is an undiscovered science.

Feels nice that somebody from the other side of the world is coming close to this understanding. Too boring for an Indian. His nice commentary about consciousness is clumped in 4 Sanskrit words Drik, Drishya Drishtaa vivek (distinguishing sight, seen object and seer). Seeker may read the last word in this - Sri Aurobindo.

India is 1 of the countries that have retained the very ancient knowledge of what energy is and is able to express it at large because of english being it's "sort of second Language". But then again, since it is hidden in it's ancient writings, it is left to interpretation.
There is an strong interest in all "fields of life" to rediscover the knowledge we once knew, and i think this is going to put to rest many of the million images we make of GOD. All of a sudden we are not asking who is GOD? We begin to wonder and research "what kind of energy is GOD"? That perhaps could one day, come to be physically if not energetically measured.
az

Aristotle
- 02/11/2011 at 20:16

@Sunday Morning Philosopher

Have you also noticed a general resistance to attempting the discovery journey and as a substitute an intellectual ascension or understanding of the process rather than the experience of the same?

There is also never a mention of the mirror or opposite pole of the conscious, the unconscious, a journey that should be made in a parallel effort. There is more present there then in the conscious observation. The play between the two opposites is a source of a different type of energy, transformative.

What may be vital in order to achieve a higher understanding of our selves, is to allow one self to explore every alien thoughts knowing they may be fed by the source itself.
And second, to not be afraid to talk and listen about those ideas to and from our closed ones. It beats talking about the weather.

az

Sunday Morning Philosopher
- 02/11/2011 at 18:44

For me It's more great how discussions around these matters always rise up to the point where we (as conscious entities) debate on what the path for what we know as the truth should be, as the below two opposing comments example...

Lisa O wrote: "He is truly brilliant and has a very clear way of explaining things."

Max: "Whenever I hear people use conscientiousness and quantum physics in the same sentence, discard it."

...whether Russel's presentation reflects reality or not, is not so important than whether we choose to "stamp" Russel's presentation as an official explanation of reality or not.

( the crazy part! :P )
Did we (as humans) have embarked on a journey to actually find "reality" and "truth"? Or are we shaping "reality" and "truth" along our journey?...

Whatever the truth is, at the end, what makes all of this so amazing is the journey itself.

A. what public?
B. if you're refering to the people in the audience of this film, they laughed because he made jokes. that's what good speakers to keep the attentioin of an audience.
C. why do you give your own answer within your question?

no body
- 01/04/2011 at 22:04

Minds (consciousness) create brains, not the other way around.

The brain is just a part of the body, what happens when the body dies? consciousness or mind doesn't die with it.
The mind just keeps going.
If brains created minds then logic would dictate, that the mind (consciousness) would also die with it. but this doesn't seem to be the case, past life experiences and other paranormal phenomenon is supportive of this idea.

I think the way we mold our view of "our truth", we listen to every thing that is said and written and we pick and chose what fits to represent where our belief system stands. We tend to talk with something to back up our ideas, a scientist, an agreed theory, a guru we have heard, a book we have read...ect...
We rarely talk of the very very personal mysterious thoughts that visits our mind....
I say: Why try to fit to a voice that was already heard. Let the DOG run wild!
az

marty
- 01/04/2011 at 13:51

i have been famous for discussing consciousness matters for longer than i can remember. it occured to me at one point that talking "about" these matters kept me out of the here and now where i could really be in fact conscious and do some good and really connect with issues at hand. 3 days of intensly being present and only doing the next approiate thing, helping a neighbor, brushing my teeth, cleaning up, etc., absorbed me so much that i lost my "self" in the ongoing flow of the present moment. the seamless unity of experiance was so pervasive and overwhelming that everything exsisted in, as and through a spectrum of consciousness-energy vibrating at various densities i.e. biology, emotion, thought and sound. it was this seperate sense of "me", thinking, worring and planning that kept this global experiance out of awareness. i had been the problem all along. struggling to be so "spiritual" and "scientific" for so many years had been a big ego trip. it is great to see this invisible substance called awareness being directed through training so much that some paralized stroke victums and some folks with emotional disorders have been taught to "rewire" their neurons and behaviours which is now referred to as neuroplasticity or or cortical re-mapping.

I tend to agree, Don't know the definition of death, yes the end of the body consciousness, but the end of the primary force the "I"?
Death can only be visualized in the third person form, never the first, meaning you can see or hear of someone dead, but that's it.

the point is that reality is more than us, as individuals. this is obvious. 'it' preceded us, 'it' preceded the first cell, 'it' persists after our death.

yes, i assume my death will be much as yours. if not in manner, certainly in result.

it is only when we as grasping, entitled individuals as we often are, demand that this meta-event we name reality be contained within the vanishingly narrow span of our own conciousness and years that such distortions arise.

we are leaves. while the leaves die, the tree persists. while the tree dies, the forest persists, while the forest dies, the planet persists.

where it all ends, who knows. but it doesnt end with us, it is only very minutely about us. we are privileged to be a part of something greater. we are privileged to understand a little of what it means.

we are, very likely, amongst the more privileged species in the universe.

most of our problems arise from greed, at every level, including philosophical.

Many claim that Kundalini Yoga makes you understand the self and but till date nobody is able to explain the 'self'to the masses .it is more like the quote from movie Matrix 'unfortunately,no one can be told what The Matrix is you have to see it yourself to understand it'...lol

our conciousness is that part of reality we possess, which organizes our perceptions, which provides the capacity to learn names for things, keep track of them, and as well the relations that arise from the names in motion.

it is a conservative frame-of-reference, a meta-process of the human brain. chimps and other higher, esp. social mammals, may have something of this, as other higher animals. the highest-functioning of them certainly have memory, associational and cognitive facilities. what they dont have is the linguistic, which severely cramps their ideation beyond the here-and-now, and the need-to-know

reality is first. our ideas of it are just that. words.

when you are dead, reality goes on. we know this, because we see it going right on when other people just like us die.

therefore, all this philostophizing about rendering reality to some purely internal, subjective phenomenon is nonsense.
conciousness is simply a very interesting fruit in the pie.

we were born of some, we give rise to others - we are simply a transient part of the great whole.

The day we can prove what life is, perhaps we won't have to wonder what death is. Until then we are left with a very strong locked wall between the two.
az

Epicurean_Logic
- 12/10/2010 at 20:16

@D-K

There is also a lot of research in modern times to suggests that social and emotional learning is as important as maths and language lessons! Yes I can imagine that many people, especially those involved in education, are foaming at the mouth right about now, but consider that many really bright people are having difficulty finding work and that there is also a teamwork and effective communication component involved with all jobs. Highly intelligent people are usually likely to have less evolved social skills. You might argue that the point of education is not solely for the purpose of finding employment but hey, lets not flog the proverbial dead horse on this one. We all need to eat!

The altered consciousness dynamic that we touched upon is a non-conformist individualistic paradigm. This is what many people, myself included live for. Unfortunately we all have to play the game in order to benefit fully from societal (i.e. money) benefits.

Intellectual v emotional can be broken down into slow and accurate intellectual responses that follow the: emotional stimulus-sensory thalamus-sensory cortex-amygdala- emotional response route OR fast and more hit and miss route of emotional stimulus-sensory thalamus-amygdala-emotional response... That is the fast emotional response by-passes the sensory cortex! This is an evolutionary survival mechanism that allows parallel responses of fast reactions to real threats and slow well thought out verifications to these stimuli.

Will do. I assume you're referring to Warmoesstraat, in which case a dose of epinephrine might indeed lead to certain ... complications.. Best to stay clear, me thinks.

The emotion v intellect debate catches my fancy as well, I've been exploring that area for quite a while now. Well, "a while" considering my relatively young age, that is. I recently had a train of though involving the fact that mostly when a child is raised, the focus tends to lie on emotional reasoning, i.e morality, right&wrong, yada yada. When this is a given, one can extrapolate how emotional reasoning tends to be stimulated whereas intellectual growth is stifled due to social expectations and the replacing of independant morality with group/societal morality. As such, the frame of reference is built around rules which are grounded in morality, which in turn is subsequential to emotional reasoning. Emotional reasoning thus becomes the standard when I integrate the mechanic you highlighted;

"The problem becomes more interesting when you consider that over a lifetime of ‘Dysfunction’ altered consciousness becomes ‘normal’ to the individual"

The same applies to intellectual v emotional reasoning. Now what makes this especially interesting, is taking this little scenario, integrating the evolutionary psychological paradigm and then compare to other societies within the animal kingdom, or even hypothethical societies.. but I guess I'm getting carried away here, I should wrap this up. To be at least somewhat concise in my conclusion; emotional reasoning tends to be more ...erhm.. resilliant than logical reasoning simply because we were programmed to favour emotional reasoning. Even though in a lot of cases it's downright inefficient, messy and so utterly subjective that it negates it's use, it has served us relatively well.

Happy hunting. Let me know where to look up your research; through commander Vlatko if necessary.

You are right about question two; the data is not readily available. I am not surprised because there is very little known about the emotional brain and its relation to cognition. One fun fact is that the evolutionary older subconscious /instinctive/ emotional brain can readily flood consciousness, while conscious control over emotions is weak. For example: However hard you try to stop crying when a loved one dies by telling yourself that there is nothing that you can do about it, just doesn’t help. And conversely when in deep thought; a rat in your room will always knock you out of your train of thought. In short, the wiring from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems.

I admire your spirit of adventure and curious mind. Next time I am in the Dam It would be nice to look you up. Unfortunately I just gave up smoking of all forms; even worse, my buddies are coming over to 'The holy land' in January and I just can't force myself to go with them. I do enjoy your buccaneering attitude, so be safe and try not to stray to far east of Waermerstraat when on the oxytocin and epinephrine. I hear that there can be unexpected and over-exuberant responses. Lol. Good luck.

One of the Docs does a good job of discussing how the brain adjusts for missing or damaged sensory organs (including its self). It then proceeds to give or attempt an explanation of how the damaged perception is or can be adjusted by the perceiver once the perceiver becomes or is made aware of the problem. Adjustments can be auto as in self realization or with another’s aid.

What (sort of) puzzles me is why are some able to self adjust; some adjust with assistance and others not at all. There are many areas where this dichotomy is exhibited and (to me) it’s a little disturbing where the answers seem to lead.

Grazie signori, I went for the general "neurotransmitters" as opposed to a specific hormone/poly to open up a fine subject of discourse concerning awareness and the impacts upon it by prime factors (hormone distribution) and "special parameters" such as the impaired/damaged amygdala that act upon said prime factors.

I've always found hormones fascinating, especially their ability/function to overshadow conscious thought. I have a (working) hypothesis of how hormones counteract evolution in terms of behaviour/decision-making. It captivates me endlessly, although core questions remain, such as the 2nd one in my earlier post. Either google is hiding the numbers/substantial data from me, or little research has been done on this front.

Which is why I've decided to do my own little research and experiments, if anyone's interested I'll post my findings online. Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going shopping for oxytocin, epinefrine and some tests of cognitive function. Should be good. My hypothalamus gets antsy at the very thought of what's to come, lol. Thanks for the input, gents.

The first step in answering your question is to clarify on 'dysfunctional' as it covers a multitude of sins! Not an easy task I might add. Then as hinted at by @Aristotle it's important to specify: dopamine - Serotonin - DMT or whichever type of hormone or neurotransmitter is being referred to because they all cause different effects on the brain from hyperactivity to docility to hallucinations. Clearly each of these will have a different effect on awareness within the confines of your own awareness.

The problem becomes more interesting when you consider that over a lifetime of 'Dysfunction' altered consciousness becomes 'normal' to the individual. Possibly only realised by social interaction with more 'normal' brains. Mmm, doesn't everyone have the feeling of being different at one or another time In their lives?

Another thought on this subject is that of the evolutionary ramifications of damaged mood-centres of the brain! By this I mean. Why are these traits passed on through generations? If they were so awful the numbers of people with damaged amygdala would be decreasing! Maybe they are? Maybe not. What I hint at is that there is some benefit. More specifically working from a different angle of perception from the majority of 'normal' people means that you are mother and father to yourself on these matters. 'Odd' characters are usually more creative because there is a creating/understanding/perceiving of reality process that the person with the damaged brain has to figure out for their self and adjust to accordingly.

the universe in macro, may be a baby or maybe just us; we are our parents; we divide to understand and forget to conceptualize.
whats doing the knitting, the forces that exist after creation were constrains in creation thats shape.
m

Break all brain activities into separate functioning parts. Consider those involved with memory, perception, communication and etc. Then consider those involved in reflexive activities, instinctive duties. Consider how they are initiated, combined and controlled. That’s part of the realm of current neuroscience.

The question that has yet to be answered with certainty from science is, is consciousness part of or separate from the brain. They are proceeding in the reductionist view that it is not.

If it is a process of the brain that process has yet to be discovered. That leaves things in the all too familiar materialist vs immaterialist opinions. RE: Williams James, consciousness not a thing but a process. RE: Sir John Eccles, conscious is separate from the body and he used the term soul.

That term, soul, interjects a whole other set of debates where neither side will coalesce. To further stir the mix, soul can be termed as the animating force “life”. The absence of which is biological death (single cell and complete organisms and within the organisms cells die at different times but can live separate in the proper medium) and spirit, nous or consciousness of that life, from the limited and beyond. (Terms, terms, terms leading to debate after debate) (Don’t get me started.)

Using Mr. James view then a dysfunctional brain yields a dysfunctional consciousness within the entity (objective)

Using Sir Eccles view then the entity is trapped within a dysfunctional organism unable to control itself or communicate properly but would be “aware” of the problem (subjective). (expand or contract examples for your self time is short and I'm digging a hole here)

More pertinent to your question would be the example of a brain on a psicodyllic substance. I have no experience with this other than the naturally occurring neurotransmitter called serotonin, 5-hydroxy-tryptamine and its cousin DMT. All mentioned are handled differently individually.

Some have nightmarish experiences, some have nightmares and some have visions. Some can handle them well, others do not. Some get involved with the show and some do not. It’s the same with any mood altering hormonal explosions. Some can handle them some cannot (or will not).

@Achems gave the example of Plato's "Allegory of the cave" maybe we are like the prisoners who are not able to perceive the truth of nature because of our limited view. Changes in perspective changes the view.

Errata: There is a serious article out there that considers the electromagnetic properties of neural activity extending outside the head forming a feed back loop. (Worth some thought)

But how, there is a caveat. The means and environment must be considered important and the importance lies in belief -> Interpretation -> Action.

This is the division between eastern philosophy and Science. For science, if the established tools work use them and use them to develop better tools through the scientific method, experimentation, physical observation, data collection and confirmation, one form fundamental in one community used to define underlying reality (when observation is possible).

The other fundamental community (more or less) eastern or other mystical philosophies are also attempts to see through the perceived reality to discover the underlying reality. Even if we agree to omit the ridicules, some of what has been stated to be ridicules have entered into serious scientific thought though unproven by scientific method.

Are they mutually exclusive, just mutually limiting or allies? Primary offenders are Bhor’s Copenhagen Interpretation leading to there’s no reality behind our observations and Driac who brings QED into the world of ideas through elegant math but was math alone his tool?

{The void (total vacuum but only “On Average”) consists of energy (what ever it really is) borrowed from the future (presupposes forward time) for extremely brief periods.} Energy is borrowed in the form of matter/antimatter “must keep balance” and then self destructs ->Vibration in the void -> the quantum foam. (I must add proven to be so.) (And later envisions affecting elements in the past)

Feynman introduced diagrams (and set theory??) to describe the phenomenon, not elegant math. Bohr, Driac and Feynman were berated (challenged is kinder) for a time within their community.

Both dogmas use the same basic tool, conscious perception. Both envision realities unseen. At the risk of being repetitive the tools are different but both seek a “Vision/Idea”

As far as consciousness alone affecting matter, the “finger sausage” visual illusion, the binaural beat and the “Aristotle’s nose” illusions are the “double slit” experiment repackaged for the body. They use three methods of sensorial perception. Two for sure use waves directly. Changing the focus of consciousness (with free will mind you) doesn’t change the data only its perception. Individual perception affects the individual until injected into our common reality. There they affect us all objectively and subjectively. Atomic theory became reality as have norms in life style and forms of governments.

Isn’t the basic idea of both communities’ methods to improve the future? I prefer a proof backed by experiment and observed data but won’t dismiss or demean either search method (within reason).

Is this Primacy exhibited in the conformation of the basic forces? Then again philosophy bakes no bread but without philosophy would ever a loaf been baked? (I think that’s close)

I know, I know, did not mean Sinusoidal properties or anything, just mentioned circles in passing, was not even that relative to the discussion.

But seemed to remember "Plato's" reference to forms, probably why I brought it up.

Just for reference only, any point of any instrument, pen or pencil or any mechanical means, leaves a somewhat straight line no matter how carefully you move around the curve, you are still making a bunch of dots right up to the subatomic level. Same goes for a straight line, can't line up atoms one by one perfectly straight.
And also in all of nature nothing is perfectly round or straight. Probably in all of the universe, who knows.

“Chaos” It’s only chaos to us. Those waveicles and subs do exactly what they should.

“But one thing, since this eastern philosophy issue is brought up”. Physicists are curious people by nature. Why would that curiosity end with physics? Oppenheimer said, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. That’s a quote from the Bhagavad-Gita. He obviously read it. I’m sure that Hermetic Philosophy is no stranger in their arena as well as other philosophies. Many of these systems are just other ways of thinking or another way of looking. Being familiar with them and then experimentally discover what seems to be the philosophy in actuality has to be unsettling. If Newton (as well as others) had been discovered reading Alchemy texts he may have not lived long enough to achieve his current status. Not everything he read was “Magic”.

The statement that “We stand on the shoulders of giants.” is an understatement. I have always enjoyed the elegance of the analogue world. Today we live in the digital age. Yet digital representations only approximate the true analogue structures. Nature is analogue. Just how new is this digital revolution?

Initially Pythagoras, Archimedes and Euclid come to mind. All did their finishing school in (and Euclid taught in Alexandria) Egypt and they where not alone. All where mathematicians/mystics when considered within their cultures. Archimedes couldn’t have cared less for the temporal. Pythagoras had a cult following (and still may have). The math taught in Egypt was considered sacred (secrete) and taught in steps of “initiation”. It included preparatory schooling and completing the initiations can be considered our current system of degrees of scholarship.

Geometric shapes where their focus to emulate what they saw in nature following the axiom “As above so below”. That is a Hermetic statement, Hermes being the Greek equivalent of the Egyptian Thoth. So is the idea of universal balance, the sum of all things is Zero.

Computing the properties of the circle was of particular importance to them both temporal and spiritual. Geometry and trigonometry (Babylon, Egypt and the mathematician Pinophyta) are ancient. Euclid’s synthetic Geometry is a cumbersome manual calculus. All were scientists and mystics. We just never hear about the latter. All were geniuses.

The first that comes to mind to be persecuted for their ideas was Socrates (another Philosopher mystic). The next is Archimedes and both for religious/political reasons, Galileo and Copernicus where not the first. Each of these attacks was about power and the consequences of their ideas and little or nothing about truth.

Individuals like this are throughout every culture. At different times and places their various ideas concerning the nature of the unseen have been recorded and studied. These ideas are often and most usually described in geometric symbols and are mathematical studies. The symbols and math are no longer considered sacred but you still need the initiations (degrees) to be taken seriously (politics and power).
The math doesn’t lie. If it was true in 2500 BCE it’s still true today. The only time math lies or misleads is when the initial assumptions are incorrect or a mathematician’s error or oversight.

Suppose Einstein made such an oversight and spent his last 30 years looking for it. With just such a thought here’s a quirky one from an unknown, is the formula E=mc2 or E=m(AZ)2 where A is acceleration and Z is time? If the mass is considered a photon then q=m/A then E=qA2Z2. If that were true the implications are at least interesting.

Much of their study revolved around two circles overlapping by their radius are considered a mystical symbol and used to represent Christ, the joining of the god and goddess (the son being the areola), the mind generating consciousness, the tree and flower of life to mention a few.

When studied geometrically the results produce various properties in nature i.e. the formation (and formative power) of polygons, generation of the various polyhedra, geometrical description of square roots and harmonic proportions, the square roots of 2, 3 and 5 (1 assumed but obvious) the root of the Fibonacci sequence leading to fractals, the basis of natures growth pattern and more. Let me not forget Aristotle’s static matter being energies in motion (Planck Unit). And that’s full circle.

If physicists have knowledge of these things (I’m sure they do) and the observations match, once they get past the ridicule it’s not a big leap or at least a consideration. There’s one partial explanation.

I take it that razor 01: and spirit 01: are the same.
Instead of talking in parables, wish this person would give us what he or she means in more than a few words.

But one thing, since this eastern philosophy issue is brought up, find it incongruous that science et al: is bringing into vogue that was known a long time ago. A lot of the big guns in theoretical and quantum physics say maybe the observer effect coalesces the seemingly chaos into matter.

I have for many years and still do experience the Unity or Oneness of All. The practices to achieve this are many and varied and I have used a few. They all produce the same results and all have their impediments. These impediments all are based around the cultures and religions that are their source.

Each culture and religion necessarily needs them to overcome their memes to achieve the experience. These impediments are counter productive in many yielding a myopic understanding of it. Not all are of the same culture, of the same religion nor are all believers in things extra-temporal.

The interesting thing is that all are capable of the same “Enlightenment”, if you will, regardless of their beliefs or non-beliefs. You see it’s what you seek that you ultimately find. Any find is worthy of the journey. Each one leads to the next. There are as many paths as there are seekers and each seeker is worthy to journey. Consider that any journey the mind takes as “Spiritual”.

Do you choose what you seek or is the sought for part of you? Some become surgeons to gain wealth and some for the desire to heal. Neither negates the other. It’s the same in any of life’s endeavors.

It’s a question of intent. All is a manifestation of the mind. Both remain a journey within the mind played out in the temporal and the ends of those journeys begin with intent. As in the story of the Rebbe and the Hasid mentioned in a prior post, if your journey remains solely self attainment then you have never completed the journey.

Intent is what we ultimately manifest. It’s your Essence laid bare for all creation’s observation. The care is not what you believe, it’s what you manifest. The rest is a natural progression within and without.

An old Rebbe was listening to a young Hasid’s (student’s) explanation of the Tree of Life. The Hasid gave a poetic and beautiful description of each shell as he proceeded shell by shell into the inner central truth. The young Hasid beaming at what he believed to a perfect description waited for the Rebbe’s response. The Rebbe while stroking his beard and peering over his reading glasses said, Kreplach!! (Jewish for something like Ravioli) The young Hasid was wounded to the core. How could you wound me so he complained? The Rebbe replied, if the spiritual is of no temporal good, what good is it.

The Hasid was prideful and the Rebbe poignant and conservative giving two lessons in one statement.

All illusions are manufactured in the brain and they are first clues. Examining their facets from all aspects allow one to see through them. If that process is shared the sum of the parts is greater than the whole therefore more is realized through dialogue and more triggered in observers.

One could of course sit under a Bodhi tree and meditate and that is just another method, different path same end.

First the "nows" I guess by 'now' you might gather am a proponent of "Julian Barbours" theory, "the end of time" Some good maths on his site. His theory is that everything, I mean everything, all parallel universes, everything already happened, past present and future, everything is static, as an analogy, like a picture book of snapshots, every single action/nows, frozen in eternity forever.

But still free choice, in regard to any action that we take will form new results, not making anything new mind you just going on the unlimited choices available. Puts the sentients/us, reality on a different heading. And yes, have to take into account all interactions, that is part of the picture, but they say nothing happens by chance.

His theory is that time is a progression of "nows" but the "nows" do not disappear, always in the picture book.

Waves, interesting what you said about waves, but again according to quantum physics, might sound weird but if you push out your hands, will form waves that will instantly be felt in all possible regions of the universe. Time and space does not compute in Q.P.

I do enjoy this stuff and I’m surprised we only picked up one sniper on this patrol.

@razor 01 your last post should have been your first. If
you have been reading that is partly what we’re talking
about. Much of the rest is about how we affect the
perceived illusion as it proceeds and some is how we self-
delude. All that can be gathered from your post is that
you may have read a book.

@Achems Razor In this discussion we’re mixing physics with interactive sentient response. One is within the perceived and populated environment and other is prior to it, the material that made (past tense) it. This observation happens within matter but does the consciousness that initiates it? (This is starting to feel like one of those old meditations.)

The “now(s)” are interesting. There are many perspectives from the quantum arena to each separate sentient individual. Considering the individual, it’s the moment prior to action, the idea in abstract conception, the cause, which is still delayed by the actions necessary to perceive it.

It’s like standing in the tee box watching a golfer strike a ball at the other end of another fairway. We see the action but the “crack” is delayed due to distance (experience tell us that the crack should be there and we expect to hear it??). The idea in abstract is the cause of the future actions of an individual, the next now(s). So maybe the future is fixed for a tenth of a second but no more?? “Unlimited probabilities” yes, for individual and communal (can’t forget interactions) futures.

“A/C” Potentials, all waves have this on/off property. Any amplitude necessarily creates its opposite as its potential rises (usually glossed over). For every expansion there must be a contraction. If the property of oscillation is seen with a time vector it passes zero potential (action) every cycle. Would that be no energy, no mass, nothing?? In two dimensions it’s a vibrating string. Its opposite is below the visualized string, unseen but immediate. As the oscillations continue together they form a series of circles, adjacent or superimposed perspective dependent. Without the propagation time vector it’s visualized as a point, one dimension, emitting a circle, two dimensions and finally three dimensions containing both properties, negative and positive yielding volume, the sphere. (I have no idea why I typed that?)

When you are describing I/O input and output loop, of a 24 hour period that say an entity has lived through, and then replayed, say similar to the movie (ground hog day), if the replay was totally fixed, as in a machine, computer, recorder. then would be no variance.

But if relayed/replayed in the human computer/brain, re: consciousness, like you say with all the not quite focused peripherals that escaped our attention, what would happen is that it will give way to new unlimited probabilities, It is not possible to pinpoint the same probable actions that transpired previously, re: consciousness, similar to time travel to the past, you never will know where you may end up. At least that is what quantum physics say. Just by act of observation alone will change the outcome.

I know what you are saying, if the data "could be fixed", but not possible because of what I have mentioned above.

But say if it was possible to be fixed, if you catch even one of the peripherals that you missed, will set a whole new series of events into motion that will present a different outcome of your reality, will follow a new course of actions. a different universe/perspective if you will.

Yes, have the movie "Basic Instinct" (LOL) if somehow a person missed that gratuitous spread in the 24 hour loop and then "lo and behold" picked it up in the feedback loop, that alone would completely change everything. New course of actions.

Yes, everything that we experience is history, everything is in a progression of "nows" we only live in our nano-second of right now. Period. time seams to flow in an unbroken linear fashion, but so does A/C current (light Bulb) but in fact it is flickering on and off, 60 times a second.

There is much more that I can say, probably can write a book, but will leave it for now.

Oh, now(s) as the term was used are not probable they are settled, history. The action or reaction to them is a proper now and they effect the following now(s) in moments to come and beyond. Example: Express and insult (now), repercussions (next now). I would truly enjoy (I think) a glimpse of a true now occasionally. Think about it for a moment.

Give me some latitude on this because there some subjective observations and some of the latest understandings of those researching brain function with some what ifs added. What I’m going to attempt to describe is a closed feedback loop. In another post to “How the Universe Works” I used the following example:

If we could record through an I/O port the total information transmitted to the brain for a twenty-four hour period and replay the data through the same I/O port with all other incoming information blocked what could we change? (heavens to matrix)

It would be a virtual “Ground Hog Day” (the movie) with a memory of the total day intact including peripheral data (areas where we didn’t focus our attention). It could be a background conversation, an unobserved accident or any other peripheral happening within our sensory fields that escaped our attention.

You would have and observe the same physical sensations, conversations or perform the same actions and interactions. Since the data are fixed none of these things could be changed, a virtual déjà vu but with a memory of the day.

Then we have things that are known and/or agreed to be true: The brain stores much of the data in short term memory and has access to all input data (signals) if only temporarily. If we review and/or use some method to enforce the data that involves other physical I/O sources (taking notes, discuss, experiment or etc.), we increase the likelihood of adding it to long term memory. That adds focus and awareness. Discussion or reviewing notes increases awareness (allows clarification and/or insight, ah ha).

Then during (REM or deeper) sleep maintenance is preformed, viewing, storing, discarding (??) and other necessary functions including a recharge; we awake mentally refreshed. This could be construed as an automatic “Ground Hog Day” more or less. During this sleep our eyes move, some move hands and feet to include sleep walking, experience sensations, motion, falling, etc. and so do other mammals (at least), dogs for sure. (We traverse and interact with the scenes.)

The memory is not serial i.e., bit after bit in sequence. They are stored throughout various areas of the brain and mapped. (There are articles available about this) Access is to and through these maps and the information is collated into sequence. Brain scan imaging will reveal areas of usage but not the maps. (rewind and playback?)

Subjective speculation: Discussion within a group has obvious positive results but so do self discussions. These occur when taking notes or just mulling things over with ourselves. We look (mentally or other wise). We ask internal questions and get internal answers. Some do this out loud and probably best done alone. I’m sure you get the idea.

Back to the virtual “Ground Hog Day” and what could be changed. The only possible change that could be is where you focus your attention all else would be automatic including your own verbal responses and actions. If there was a discussion the brain picked up and recorded (even subliminal messages) that you did not focus on it would be possible to focus attention on the noise and turn it into intelligible data. It would be the same with a written page glossed over or the cause of an accident that the eyes picked up while your attention was elsewhere. There are hundreds of these types of scenarios. In these cases you are simply choosing which to view (global sense).

Part of this speculation is that you are simply a viewer choosing what will get your attention. Each change of attention adds to accumulated data and that adds to your total awareness. Here is an easy and all too easy example. In the movie “Basic Instinct” where Sharon Stone is interrogated and performs a gratuitous spread. If you were focused on faces you missed it. Of those who did, how many watched again and adjusted their attention or downloaded a clip for total attention? We’re back to “if you care to” you can adjust your attention. But just what or who is making the adjustments of attention?

The less studied insight would be a choice of two. The emotion is one (I just have to see this) and the decision maker the second. Many miss, ignore or merge the third with the decision maker. The third seems to be partly hardwired, partly learned and reinforced. It could be partly in the genes although I personally don’t think so. You know the labels Id, Ego and Super Ego but there are other labels. (As I have said Freud leave me cold.)

I probably shouldn’t go here. It’s way too open. Quite a while back I was heavily involved in various meditative practices (I’m a child of the 50’s and 60’s) and there was an ah ha moment I wont forget. We are capable of meditative self dissection, function isolation and individualization. Just when I was comfortable with all the self revelation a really deep insight occurred (At least I thought it was deep). While observing these various aspects or parts it occurred to me that the observer had to be observed in order to have awareness of it and that could be known only through insight (one aspect of what some call enlightenment). Every thing in our experience passes through this inspector and we (the Architects if you will) direct its gaze.

This is what I termed above as a closed feedback loop and it’s closed due to the sources of data, the physical environment, enhanced observations deep within and outside the environment and the mind itself. This is the part that the boys and girls in that lab can’t pin down. Call it what you may. The bottom line is that we are given stimuli to interpret as matter and situation and we do just that for better or worse.

Here is the conundrum, everything we experience is history. Physical experience is at least 100 milliseconds after the fact. Light travels 18,600 miles in that interval or approx. three quarters of the way around the earth relative to our perspective. That doesn’t change the fact that the stimulus is there. The question to be pondered is that if distance (space/time) is only a product of experienced stimulus where does this Universe exist?

Someone will have fun with this I’m sure. I hope that wasn’t too boring and in line with your post?

Yes, but everything that we have discussed concerns consciousness in one form or another.

Are we conditioned in our 3 dimension plus time to be observers, because since at the view-point of the photons there is no travel, no time involved, everything is static at the speed of light. Therefore like I said before, we live in our probable nows which are forever frozen, because at the photons perspective at the speed of light no such thing as time, distance, space, etc:

But because quantum mechanics states that atoms are flickering in and out of existences, in other words more than one place at the same time, and according to string theory, our universe is but one vibrational unit of unlimited probable ones, to make an analogy are we catching the one flickering atom/vibrational unit that is determining our existence, are we collapsing the waveform by our observation or by observing the already observed by the collective consciousness to make it so?

Therefore our seemingly progression of our probable nows which make up our linear progression of spacetime. What of all the other probable nows that we chose not to take as our probable course of actions? They are still there and just as viable in other parallel universes with our multidimensional selves.

My friend your questions are never easily addressed. The prior discussion dealt with perception and interaction within various modes of consciousness, passive, controlled and reflexive. Included were the closely held views (I call them prejudices) we bring with us and various methods of dealing with them. Basically stripping consciousness down to its primary state and attempting that of pure disinterested observer or observation. I read the comments prior to viewing. They are full of examples within our prior discussion. This one deals with consciousness it self.

Just as a lead in, I had to pause during viewing. I have no problem with his presentation up to 55:00 where I paused for some personal notes, glimpses if you will. All are within current explanations of science and his extrapolations are easily followed (rejected or accepted). Something grabbed my attention that I already understood but the way he stated it was queued up in a different way.

It was that of the period of a photon’s existence as seen by the photon, instantaneous emission and annihilation, no time expended and no distance traveled, a photon being the minimum packet of action and zero space/time. I’m mulling over the ramifications of that thought and its implications as everything we perceive is a translated sensory reaction to various packets of quanta. These packets all travel at the same speed, don’t they?

I’m toying with the idea that we are made up of various conglomerations of these packets, brain included, that perceive them. The knowing doesn’t change the perceived reality. What we experience is always past action, history, as it takes the brain a tenth of a second to translate for our perception for our viewing (virtual reality…). That’s where my mind is at the present moment. You’ll have to provide some provocation.

But right now I have a dinner/dancing date with my one and only a prefered reality.

It looks as though I missed a really good time here, consciousness and unconsciousness, self-awareness and unawareness, zombies or golems, sense, and nonsense, logic and emotion, physics and philosophy, Hate and love, then lastly poetry. What a play-pen...

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.....

Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant – an indispensable object to it, confirming its life – just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

||XXVII| A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it – it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another – another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing – a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) – an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself – objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being – and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.

And as everything natural has to come into being, man too has his act of origin – history – which, however, is for him a known history, and hence as an act of origin it is a conscious self-transcending act of origin. History is the true natural history of man (on which more later).
[...]

Above excerpt is from Marx in "Philosophical manuscripts 1844" in a critique of the Hegelian dialectics in general.

It criticizes the idea of some "absolute being" (or: consciousness) as such a being is just something abstract, but not objectively based.

That probably is it, her product is probably something like belief or along those lines or should I say words of wisdom or some catch phrases picked up from some gurus, Buddhist teachers with no awareness of oneself as most of them talk about that a lot; this is usually what the religious people or followers of some guru or teacher are doing, which is deceptive cause they subdue themselves to a following creating the authority and so spreading the word for them just becomes an authoritative act on their own and so they end up in conflict with the teachings with their own interpretation, which is really why the follower is the user, the one taking advantage of the teacher and the words for ones own personal betterment whether psychologically or financially

@Eric. Sue's purpose here is to drum up some business by offering some free initial advice! i have met these types before and no matter how interesting and profound the comments are, at the end of the day she makes a lot of money and offers no actual product or service.

Personally, i think that this kind of thing should be illegal, purely for the reason that there is deception involved. The other side of me says that if you are a fish, then you deserve to be eaten up by the sharks!

You are correct to question her motivation. Well spotted.

If someone offers me the 'answers' and then wants a fat pay off to do so i just lose interest. It's also worth noticing that many of her students will be tutored in how to say the right things with a view to selling the 'teachings' further on down the line. i.e. learn myicism- improve finances- improves mental state. Whereas for the gullible who pay with a view to real improvement i.e. learn-improve mental state its just an expensive waste of time.

Sue is a salesperson first and formost, probably bounced around different sales jobs before landing on the golden goose.

p.s. If you want to spot a sales person one dead giveaway is having two or three first names instead of a surname. Its quite common knowledge in the sales world that this gives off the impression of confidence.

Just so that we are clear that this in no way is a definition of truth;nor do I or hopefully any of you meddle in any of that philosophical debacle of truth; what is being said is that truth like love has no duality; what has duality are opinions, ideas, the concepts, the false etc.. which are not truth; to define truth is to have an idea of it,the known; the truth is not IDEA and in understanding what it is not, ,investigating, inquiring constantly we may uncover the new

Dear MD, when you say the greatest answer there is, that implies you know, perhaps you have a whiff of what it could be? and any whiff I think is a dead track;
Because you do not know and you say somebody else does not can you conclude on that? What does it mean to know? it seems that this is really a question that concerns you very much right, as we are all concerned with knowledge so much of our lives, is this a question that is important to you?

Its funny how some people speak as if they KNOW all of this has happened before or they KNOW the greatest answer there is. But you don't and I know this because I don't. So please stop pretending you know what is really happening.

So lets find out; what most of you are saying is the verbal, literal opposite; the truth is not in opposition with the false, the true has nothing to do with it, and it is the false which seeks to touch up on truth but it cannot, it only touches upon us when we accept it as the true; love is not the opposite of hate, love is like truth cause wherever it is the other is not;
perception of the false is truth and in itself is an act of love, which does not oppose the false, or condemn, nor is there any conflict between the two,but what opposes are ideas, because they are both equal and with that equality they both are trying to take the same spot and so there is conflict; have you ever watched two politicians argue? just watch and dont give it any thought cause we are dealing with facts, not thoughts conjured up from ideas

George Boole created a form of math based on binary code. Computer science would not be possible without it. His logic gates were elegant and phenomenal!

He went a little mad, as most geniuses do, (surrounded as they are by monkey-humans), but his many thesis' eventually went into how the entire Universe could be extrapolated by understanding the nature of "opposites".

Was going to go outside and actually get some sun, yes it is shining for a change. Rained all week.

Now stuck again on pc. thanks, but have to reply. (LOL)
Ah! oli! take no one for granted, you may be surprised what most people actually know. Hermeticism is old religion from antiquity, believing in the "all" or "the one" Yes, must be opposites or else there would be nothing, like hot and cold, love and hate, peace and war, yin and yang, cause and effect, matter and antimatter, devils and Gods, good and bad, and even what @Randy said, truth and falsehood, and so on...it is all the same, but at varying degree's, and it is only relevant to each persons thinking, or like you said, your relative experience of it, and like Einstein said, it is all relative. it is hermetic thinking which means, "all there is"

And Know what you mean also, of all the internal states of mind, internal dialogue that most people have in there minds, and good and bad thoughts, like even some mind farts (LOL) can't forget Sex either, most men think of sex every 27 seconds.

So basically what @ Sue: is teaching is how to control the mind?
Anybody with some smarts can do that themselves, and not have to relinquish there power to someone else. Because every sentient being in the cosmos knows the difference between bad or good. You sure as hell need no religion for that!

Truth has no opposite? You didnt give that much thought. Randy jsut pointed out that semantically there is an opposite. There is a truth that evolution proliferates species but it also kills it ( that's at the heart of Darwinian Evolution right?).

@Randy

Boolean algrebra...oh i only had a taste of that in college in my logic and computer science class! Any suggestions on what material to look at outside of a classroom setting?

For you guys who know me this may not surprise you but.....What Sue Ann is saying does make sense to me. LOL

@Achems Razor

It is a different way of thinking and observing....therefore a different form of understanding and, as a result, communicating. Its a very Hermetic way of understanding the world ( some would say deeper, others who dont understand would say crazy). Its very dualistic, rooted in cause and effect, polarizing way of thinking while at the same time realizing the opposites are just as true and its all the same. ......I know...I lost yo all there LOL...but to explain it would take pages, but I believe an example might clear it up a little.

She showed a few elaborate examples, but here is a simple one to kind of show a few of the principles at play. Hot and cold is the experience of the same thing but at different levels/degree relative to yourself. You cant say where hot ends and cold begins (especially since its so relative) they are just polarizations of the same thing. Hot and cold cant exist without someone experiencing it ( its really just vibrations that exist outside your reality and you label it based on your relative experience of it). In the end everything is the same since its all just different manifestations of vibration. The same can be said of internal states of mind ( which is why she was talking about responsibility and control of your emotions but not suppressing them). And when she said "neg magnetic fields attract neg poles" it makes sense if you think about in regards of vibration/spin/movement ( a neg mag field in a way creates a neg pole...she never said anything about attracting negative matter I dont think. And I know she didnt say create either but I think its what she was alluding to)

@Eric. Sorry for being rude to you earlier in the post. I was working on a hunch and in retrospect it came out as really insensitive. This wasn't my intention. I am glad to see that you are asking more relevent questions now.

@Randy. $$$'s. I am in the wrong game.

@Sue. Lots of questions for you. Surely life isn't so black and white as feel and not think or think and not feel? Everyone has some balance of the two. Your right to direct those comments at me though as i clearly have questions about this duality.

Sue this really concerns me as I ma still getting these posts so let me write a little; are you a teacher in the sense that you are also aware of yourself? so that what you teach is not a concept which is outside of you, something gathered externally and integrated in? the reason I ask this is because what are the purposes of your comments, or your arrival to this site? is it to gather more information to present to your students, followers because perhaps the same material is being repeated over and over again? Can you tell me how you will approach this problem of a mind that is unaware and teach it to be aware?

@Sue. How much do you charge? Is it $2000 for a 3 day course? and don't you think that you should be providing something a bit more tangible for the money?

I kinda see that you are plugging a gap in peoples requirement for some undestanding of the unknown, their honest fears, and for that you will always get work as people will always have many things that are unknown.

Isn't it a bit immoral to prey on human weakness (there will always be many unknowns), offer an intangible solution and charge $$$'s for this service.

Another quote from the still great Jack Nicholson, from the movie.. (as good as it gets)...was asked in the movie, how he knew women so well, replied...Quote..."I think of a man, then I take away all reason and accountability"...unquote.

Yes, you are wrong, completely. What I teach is Self Awareness and expansion of consciousness. I put it in a style that can be understood by many by using symbols and myths commonly known.

Half of Humanity feels but doesn't think. The other half thinks but doesn't feel. That's the half that is *here*. Intellect driven by INSTINCT.

Even belief in nothing is still a belief. And knowing goes far beyond belief. It is a known, beyond a shadow of doubt. But it is also something each one of us can only experience for ourselves. I guide to get in touch with yourselves, look within your Mind and come to 'know' your own self. Including all those 'feelings' you're so afraid of because you do not know how to cope with.

Mine is an observational skill from developed sensitivity and awareness. "Sensitivity" doesn't mean "insecure" as in "boohoo", it means AWARE.

There is emotional insecurity and instability expressed all throughout comments here. Along with a lot of self doubt and FEAR.

And it is being caused by a lack of responsibility and accountability for beliefs and ideas chosen, a lack of responsibility and accountability for the way in which ideas and beliefs are related to each other, and a lack of accountability and responsibility for resultant peptide production.

Ho hum. what else is new....the results of a lack of responsibility and a lack of accountability are glaring us in the face the world over.

I probably have spent a good solid 4 days in he last 6 months researching this mind,matter time etcetera, stuff and have come to know SO much. For those of you who want a better understand of the now, here it is; Imagine a line with decimal point,to represent the past (left, starting from zero) and future (eternity) but the thing is that as soon as you start from zero, you have to go into the decimal places to represent everything happening now, so starting: 0.00000000........ for eternity, this is a very good example it shows that you never have left the past and have never entered the future, but are in the eternity of the 'now', this will help explain this living in the now and why past and future is un important into a much better perspective.

I don't see why so many people are arguing, okay if you have a negative opinion about the doc to tell others what you thought but no need to target each other and keep posting negative replies.

Pay it no mind, my good man.. and please do not refrain from correcting me in the future. Just because i'm an arrogant jerk, even I can be wrong at times. (yes i'm sticking with the quasi-arrogance thing, it suits me)

I like you as well, your years of experience provide in-depth knowledge, which makes issues more easily researchable. You're like my encyclopedia :D

@Randy: "How do you think anyone who doesn’t study philosophy regards the statement of ” believing is irrational”?”"

That was his good point, that's what I replied to (which in hindsight i maybe should have specified)

You can't explain a fool how he's being a fool, as being a fool he wouldn't understand. This means that explaining to a fool that he's a fool is foolish, and as such the fool indirectly makes you a fool.

Also, wrong page Randy, your enthusiasm gets the better of you. I know catching D-K being illogical is tempting to point out, due to the rarity of the situation...

*pause for arrogant smirk*

...but you should have given me the benefit of the doubt! I am personally distraught at your discreditance, but I will commend you for pointing out what you think are logical inconsistancies in my reasoning.. it's how we learn!

"As my high school english teacher said, ‘ If you want to understand women read Anna Karenina, Jane Austin, The Brontes’ It does fly in the face of male thinking but there are many lessons to be learned…"

He is very wise! Women are worthy of study, this is why I am happily married for 30 years!

As my high school english teacher said, ' If you want to understand women read Anna Karenina, Jane Austin, The Brontes' It does fly in the face of male thinking but there are many lessons to be learned...

Oh, also i have applied your biological, evolutionary comments about women to my dating site, I added 'Self employed' as the first statement and it seems to be working at present.

So let’s clarify to Ann and each other, practice is an act of repetition, memorization which implies that there is something concrete and so you have to practice, memorize so that it is absorbed in the brain and becomes a part of the function; what that implies is a process and so what you are saying is can I have something mechanical, something dead to tame something living, but you are living are you? or are you concerned with dead things, processes, systems,concepts and being that that is the content of the mind than such a mind must also be of the past;

So let’s do something degenerate and take poor rainbow machines quote and make Jesus of him, interpret him to death and the god he came with and form the new found scientific bible and so much for Eric's assumed mystical point of view; Your just victims of some scientific, organized religious mysticism, for sakes where do you think the man who made this doc got those points from; are you really this unaware? Can you Vlatko please remove me from receiving any emails on any of the posts or whatever is possible on your end? Great Site however with all respect, this is just too silly Take Care

"Logic is a philosophical study – what you may determine to be logical, another may not… What you consider to be irrational, others may believe to be truth. How do you think anyone who doesn’t study philosophy regards the statement of ” believing is irrational”?"

And then D-K reponded:

"Good point..."
-------------------------------

No. No, D-K, logic is never philosophy. That's like saying math is philosophy.

Well let’s see if you are? first in no way am I implying unification at all; the brain already has its own sense of order as all of the organisms, the universe, and function according to that; but we are not understanding this because we have not understood ourselves and instead in the presence of this disorder in the world and ourselves we want to apply some intellectual kind of order upon ourselves externally which are of knowledge, institutions, thought: This kind of order can only remain of the mind, cause it is the minds very creation, but will it put order to the mind?

(look) we have created something we call order and use time to organize all of it to structure the mind and in turn restricts it, imprisons it and so it creates disorder, the people are warring, rebelling, protesting, stealing, there’s crime, there’s pollution, there’s poverty, children are suffering, people are depressed, some killing themselves, killing each other and it is destroying everything and subduing ones happiness which is why you must be so negative and not accept anything and then one can see this actually, but a part of the problem problem lies in our acceptance of all of this, in our comforts, retirements that come and a little bit more and I'm dead; we accept the psychotic pills, the general education, we accept war even though we know death is a part of it and maybe say some things cause of our reactions(emotions) to the people dying on internet or these documentaries, but we don’t see what this is really doing, which is that it destroying yourself, each other and the world which is you, which is a fact, not an idea; ones acceptance is responsible for what is happening that is an irrefutable fact and any responsible human being can see this; one can see the relationship between demand and supply so when we take it out of the business context there is no difference fundamentally cause you have been served and you are the server psychologically

@Ann. Your post has some interesting points in it like the unification of the emotional and logical parts of the brain into some useful combination ( vague, i know). This is done automatically but it would be nice to flesh out some of the processes of useful 'theorems' that have a practical element to them (source Rainbow Medicine).

There is a lot of 'i know' in your comments which is all well and good. Confidence is a good thing after all! But you use it to push ideas that are abstract and not really justified by sciectific point of view.

In short, you start of really well and certainly promote your intellectual abilities well but i would like more 'cake' and less 'i know because i am brilliant!'.

My only fear is that you make a living from pushing esoteric and mystical thinking and that you will want a pay off for expanding on your beliefs. Am i wrong?

What is escape? There a so many problems in ones life, the problems with the family,financial and so on and ones inner problems; one can escape the family and friend problems in so many ways, but the inner problems are overwhelming and this kind of escape becomes a routine cause one cannot escape from this kind of intimacy, the problem is there, the problem is a part of you

Just one thing that came to me; the mind cannot discard, it cannot choose what it wants to be, the false is already a part of the content and perhaps I should use the word Reject; but what it seeks to do is discard and it cannot, it seeks to be good over ones greed, over ones selfishness, over the fact of what it really has become; choosing what you want to be is a big part of the world and what many many of us believe

The parts are not in conflict with each other, they are fragments of the mind and of the same content, but it is when we attach ourselves to a particular part like a memory, an idea which is a memory and that idea becomes all exclusive and it is then when the mind has separated itself and it cannot observe the whole;
One cannot observe the whole in part, or if it is associated as a part of any group in society which one clings to, cause it clings to those ideals and so inevitably the whole content of society is excluded which is what it really means to be unaware; an aware mind is not exclusive and it cannot be, cause it is a mind capable of observing the whole content and and not struggle, fight, oppose or resist
This content cannot be emptied to have an empty head, but when one is aware of it its place it is understood and then its movement can cease(I see you), but most if not all of us dont see it, it has become (tooo) obscure and this content has become abstracted, abstraction is a form of conflict which is when the mind actually thinks it can put parts together, but they are already a part of the same container, it can do it in partial or temporary places, like artwork cause it involves creating images and it takes the image of the abstraction and creates another fragment, idea separate from the ones it used; and this is really where the fault lies cause the mind has created an image, the image is not the thing and that is a fact; so the image about oneself or about the thing prevents it from seeing itself which is its own content actually, the mind has made an image about its own content, this is who I want to be or who I am and what others see me and discarding what it does not want to be, or what it is(contradiction); it is really tough in society to get through this cause people are creating so many images of you or of each other which is something that is so distracting; However the question is what is it that can be aware of this relationship so that there can be order to the mind which is in disorder? The mind which is seeking to put the parts together cannot, the mind is seeking its hardest to create order, to have peace, but it cannot, it uses all sorts of processes, external solutions and integrates them internally and what it is actually doing is creating more havock for the content which is already in disorder, can one be aware of this disorder? Not add to it, not seek to affect it? That’s enough for me

What I would say to you is to notice the process of how your own mind is working. There are many ideas shared but nothing integrated. Yes, our minds will play tricks on us and that is the reason it requires being a Guardian on the Threshold of our own Mind, in order to eliminate the false.

As for stillness and quietness of the mind, being "at peace" is a lot different experience then is having an empty head.

Notice how you feel entertaining these ideas related in this way. Notice if you perceive yourself as powerless because if you do, then it is the random hodge podge of thoughts put together in such a way that nothing makes any sense that is the cause.

I would guide to get out of your head so much and open up your sensitivity to other states of awareness. Which I highly suspect you closed yourself off from, due to inabilities and fears of how to cope with these states. You are out of balance.

Also notice the polarization of your own attitudes, especially as it comes to rejecting the "negative". This is a perceptual quantitative judgment. The corruption in consciousness is the quantitative judgment itself. "Neutrality" is neither "positive" or "negative".

As for "whole" and "complete", these would be states in recognition of the Absolute. Such as: "All That Is" means ALL THAT IS, not just what we found ourselves able to accept (positive).

The Unified Quantum Field isn't prejudiced or biased, it is all inclusive of what we would call both 'negative' and 'positive'.

Negative/positive, good/bad, good/evil, are all polarized or dualistic states of awareness and so long as we entertain or believe in such ideas, 'wholeness', 'complete' and 'stillness' will be realities beyond us. Once we separate Reality, we have parts and the moment we create parts, inevitably those parts will be in conflict with each other.

What do you mean by integration, and in what way are you using synthesis? It’s much like the intellectuals accumulation of getting to the whole, taking parts and putting them together in order to form a whole or we can say unity instead which implies a physical effort using information and research which may be good logically for technological things or external things, but why must one put together the whole or anything in my brain? what this really implies is a process and I don’t accept any process in terms of understanding oneself wholly, a process inwardly is a mechanical thing which is disorder, instability to the brain; Integrity does not imply any act to the whole as integration, it implies the quality of wholeness which is not something you have to arrive to, but the moment there is perception or insight of what is essentially causing such division to the mind then there may be integrity, this is really the purity of negation, which is to purify the mind of the false, the corrupted which is a quality of innocence, integrity, honesty..... you see the wonder of the brain and the order which is already there is the part which one seeks to hold and maneuver is already a part of the brain, it is already the content, but the mind has separated itself and says the content is something separate so I must maneuver it someplace else to achieve order and the mind, thought plays this trick on itself over and over, one must be aware of this completely….
It is really awareness, attention we must put all of our energy to understanding, not processes or calculations and then there can be stillness and such quietness of the mind....

"Integrity" requires "integration". This is a mental process of synthesis, rather then analysis. One puts things together, the other separates them into parts.

When Understanding is not what is desired, then I share no more, for adding the energy of my consciousness into feeding and supporting conflict does not serve my purpose or Humanity in general. Just as if someone is lost in the forest, it won't help for me to go into that same forest after them. Then we'd both be lost and the racket we make increased.

Since I was asked for Clarity, I will respond to the questions asked. I didn't start out with a 'mystical' bend but along the way of my research I saw how everything integrated; that's the beauty of it. Science cannot be as dogmatic as religion or we'll never get anyplace. A closed Mind is a closed Mind.

We are talking about "consciousness" and the evolution of it. This has been my lifetime study for my own personal reasons and I am not young. When I was young, I was one of the individuals tested by research institutes in order to determine how and why I could do the things I could.

I had instantaneous comprehension of anything I ever read, heard or saw. I had 100% retention, too. I learned how to play classical piano in 6 months at the age of 9. I danced my first recital on toe shoes after 8 months at the age of 11. I made my way through all the math and sciences, the social sciences and business sciences by the time I was 23. All that was left for me as a cure for my boredom, was theology and religion, so I delved into the study of that, too.

Tests revealed I was dominant and active on both sides of my brain, instead of the 'normal' of one. I was neither a Type A nor a Type B but both. Since only 1/2 of 1% of our world's population were born this way, no studies had ever been done. There was no help for me in learning how to live with this state. I was going to have to find that way myself, using all the tools at my disposal. So I started my study of consciousness from consciousness itself, by coming to Understand how my own Mind worked, in order to answer the question of WHY I could do the things I did and why others could NOT.

This documentary speaks of Self Awareness, "I Am". Consciousness and existence go together; we cannot have one without the other. In order to be conscious, there has to be something to be conscious OF. And in order for something to exist, there has to be conscious awareness of IT. This is simply basic sense, if we know how to make sense of things.

But I come along and question even that and I do so for a reason. Our world is in trouble, the troubles and issues talked about are real but if we seek resolutions, it HELPS if we understand how things got to be the way they are. And what would help the most is to refuse to divorce ourselves from the basic Principle of "cause and effect".

Ponder on the "Big Bang Theory" and then contemplate the sense of it. Everything coming into existence in a single moment; everything springing forth from nothing in an instant. This idea isn't only unreasonable but irrational and implausible as well. But very few "scientists" seem to notice, because much of our society's matrix of thought is founded on a belief in "causelessness".

But if I entertain the idea that the Big Bang was the END of a process started in other dimensions, THEN it would start to make sense. But then I'd also have to look at beliefs that different dimensions are SEPARATE, different in both time and place, which this documentary also mentions as illusions of ours.

It isn't with our physical eyes that we see either reason or humor and it is with our physical eyes that we've been trying to understand what exists beyond the purely physical, which I would define as the dimension where light is compressed into its greatest density. I would also guide that if we desire to understand this dimension and our powers of creation over it, we realize it is a dimension of EFFECTS, of CAUSES set into motion in others, just as I have shared with the Big Bang Theory.

In order to understand consciousness, all we need do is realize that where ever there is a RESPONSE to outer stimuli, then there is a type of consciousness there also. Just as a ray of light can be separated with a prism revealing different bands or frequencies, so it is the same with consciousness.

I have been able to identify 3 bands of Mind so far. (The more we learn the more we realize exactly how much we do not know.) There is Instinct, Intellect and Intuition. Around the 1600's we began cultivating Intellect but our Intellect has been a slave to our Instinctual level. In order to free and uplift ourselves out of this level of Instinct, we need to start paying attention to our "feelings" or the energy we set into motion (e-motion) with our thoughts and beliefs.

And start noticing how if we change what we think, how it effects what we feel. Any and every "e-motion" we have no power over, we are addicted to. The Law of Attraction as it has been presented is hogwash. And virtually nothing has been said or written about the Law of Correspondences, because that would require integrating the dimensions, which cannot be done so long as we keep believing they are separate.

Start paying attention to what we are radiating across the different dimensions, not just what we are doing in 3d. because the only way to overlook the obvious, is simply not to look.

The problems facing us now have been a long time in coming and are revealing and dissolving our illusions across the board. Like our illusion that "credit" was the same as "cash". Like our illusion that authority figures had our own best interests at heart. Like our illusions of quality and substance of character, which masqueraded around as self righteousness.

I am happy to respond if and when Understanding is sought. And I do my best not to overwhelm with too much as once. It isn't easy for me to communicate Unity Awareness in terms of polarity and conflict but TRYING is how I Serve.

these are facts, not mystical thinking, one says that because it comes from the image created of these discourses, particular words, its like when I talk with people in general (wow it was so nice to talk philosophy or psychology with you today but please not again cause Im tired, I understood enough) and so at the end of the conversation they understood nothing, they already had an idea, a preconceived notion and the mind spent time just adding to that idea and struggling with the misunderstood; the misunderstood in this sense is that which did not fit to the idea and essentially no conversation took place; this here is not a conversation but a comment to comment and that is the struggle, cause we are trying to make it something it is not, and as much as I like all of you and would talk with all of you actually that probably wont happen; but I can suggest that we can put forth a question and all of us stick with it, cause you all see we are having different conversations; whats the most important question to you and put it there until we have all stripped it clean? Someone has wrote that we are just trying to pump out what we know, so lets pick a question and all of us stick with it? put it at the top of your post OR (VLATKO) may I suggest that you create some kind of TAKE IT TO FORUM BUTTON near the post that notifies the people on the page or email.....

@eric. The question was a direct quote of @MsEdwards and i was trying to get @Ann to clarify what she was talking about. I would also ask you to clarify but i fear that clarity is not one of your strong points. Creative verbosity and mystical thinking is more your thing!

I do apologise for making you have the same conversation with me time and time again???? LMAO But if you were only a little bit more patient with me and explained your thinking a bit more clearly we could possibly end this regressive cycle once and for all. Oh please let it end.

Even though i don't get a word of what you are saying your post has me in stitches so all the best to you.

@ epicurean logic????????? The power over reality? What makes you think power is something real, you don’t have power? when we use that word we are implying to defy something, we are always seeking to overcome our frailty, our mortality, you have no power over that and that is your reality, live with it; the rich, the powerful are fighting for this and they are making the false into something real, they battle for your delusion, they compete for which one of them can delude more people and have their power over you and over your thoughts and they really cannot at least in the sense they want it, but they can create confusion, distraction, propaganda and make you look up with a slap on the chin as they have been doing with just enough of time to complete their business and this becomes their successful affair only because of our foolishness, because we are so concerned with the entertainments, the distractions, society provides for us, essentially the entertainment we provide for each other, I don’t want to entertain or please any of you, just so that we are clear; but what really seeks power is thought, thought will not allow that it is not capable to control as it shows with parents causing the child to react the opposite and thought seeing that it cannot it seeks more power over it, The controller is still guided by their own conditioning, programming and think they are in power of things and that is the trick thought plays on itself and so the desire for power is always a conflict inwardly extended outwardly

Why do all of you mystic types seem to start off so well with science? The pattern is really when the mind creates that image and recognizes and attaches the image to the thing and says have we met, we seem to over and over have this same conversation don’t we epicurean logic; there is this story I wrote about a while ago on here, It was about this man who kept coming to a place asking for a drink and the woman says we don’t serve that here and he leaves and comes back and she tells him again we don’t serve that here and he says why do you keep saying that?
@Sue may I say that you just put aside the intellectual magnetic talk to not confuse cause it is really not quite like that in physics, this is a different thing, the negative and positive are a bit different when we talk of it in physics, however the rest is understood: perhaps you are trying to connect the two as if it has an effect on us somehow, is that correct? Is that it really? Alike is something different, bin laden and bush are alike and they complement each other but this is something different than negative and positive, but it is general of most of us to seek to be positive ; we can function with regard the same, which is negative to positive and one cannot be positive, but through the negative there can be the positive, the positive is not something you can be; I just hope this is not made into some intellectual affair again, just be negative its easy, negative is not associated with all the bad which is what we are staring to call it and if you truly understand that, not intellectually or verbally then one may see how positive it really is, throughout your life you are capable of discarding the false it makes it no different then now; the problem lies in accepting, conformity which is something we have made of the positive and we say don’t be so negative, have a positive attitude, go along with it; we really have become scared to say bad and good and so we don’t say this is bad and so it has become a politically correct wording which anyone can see; I don’t myself bother with that political correct nonsense it’s just verbal jargon and so you see what we have the politicians telling us and they don’t even know what the word means and use it, how can that be correct in any way? For sakes the word negate is there; I’m always wondering why most of us don’t see this obvious fact and we think we will understand something more vast; we want to understand the complex, but I rather be stupid and get the simple out of the way and there you may find intelligence, don’t be so advanced as all the scientists are searching to be which is to advance to some new heights and exclude mostly everything for some intellectual stimulus or say that’s easy I don’t want to bother with that, I learned that already give me the hard stuff and one continues to advance, march on, cause you really must be capable of putting aside all that you know and start fresh, not discard it, but begin anew: it is a part of birth, creation, it is what the universe does and you are holding on to all the matter in your lives and wasting time cause it will inevitably come to an end, but the learning of something new does not and that is something constant; learning is constant , but attachment puts an end to learning, when you say I know, I’m prepared and then you’re finished;
I won’t go any further

I will go further, is everything a mind construct as this doc. suggests?
Is everything in a sea of unactualized gestalts of pure energy that our mind in a process of Quantum entanglement coalesces the Quantum shifts of energy in reality, objects, things, etc: As per the doc.?

Actually Randy, my FIRST degree was in Chemical Engineering. The nature of the polarity of your response is that of argumentation,negation and of conflict, indicating not only a conflicted state of Mind but that Understanding is not your desire. Once I have rejected an idea,understanding that idea becomes impossible due to the nature of a contradiction.

In addition, the requirement of guns and body guards, indicate the presence of the use of power plays, a dependency upon uses of force, applied physically,mentally or emotionally and an outer dependency upon conditions. Only those of us in denial of our power over reality have any use for these tactics and responses.

Understanding the nature of our consciousness and our power over reality isn't a probable outcome, coming from a state of powerlessness since these are contradictory concepts.

Look to the polarity of consciousness as it is expressed in response, in order to understand the nature of "like attracts like".

What is it with you mystic types @Sue. You all seem to start off so well with science, brain chemistry and the like. Then it seems to descend into, i know more than you, and you should pay me to educate you??

I don't mean to be rude, but it's just the same pattern that keeps on emerging.

What it means is that our feelings as to whether we are "secure" or not, are of our own creation. Most of us look to outer conditions to determine whether we feel "secure". This is bass ackwards, "secure" is a psychological state of mind. It is an inner state.

Most of us are psychologically insecure and have not addressed the causes and reasons for this state. Controlling our outer environment so it fits into the little box we know how to cope with, is a symptom of someone who has no control or power over their own mind.

As I said Randy, "like attracts like", just as Osama Bin Laden and GW Bush. In terms of quality and substance of character, they are/were both the same...mirrors of each other's consciousness.

Of course the LOA as presented in the "Secret" was bahooey. It was lacking in depth of understanding and failed to address our feeling natures as our own creation.

It helps if our minds are not in conflicted states but alas, a conflicted pattern is what the world teaches most of us.

Sovereignty of Mind is the responsibility most of us avoid. I, on the other hand, claim responsibility for the ideas I entertain, the way in which I associate those ideas together, as to whether they can be integrated without creating any contradictions and the resultant peptide production of my hypothalumus.

Look deeper to the level of our substance or lack thereof, of our characters in order to see how like does indeed attract like. But of course, we have to put self righteousness aside and realize our character is not determined by our goals but by the means we use to pursue those goals.

Existence is all inclusive. It includes both negative and positive experiences. It is our relationship TO existence which is conflicted.

"Peace" is a response TO reality before it can ever become a condition of it.

I guide to delve into our emotional co[ping skills and lack thereof. "Security" is a state of Mind.

The one thing many of us are not aware of, is that our emotions are entirely of our own creation. Depending upon my thoughts and the way in which I have related those thoughts together, direct my chemical production of peptides. When these peptides flood every cell receptor in my body, I call this "feeling".

How many of us claim accountability for this response-ability?

How many of us avoid this accountability and instead use "blame" and "guilt" to extort and control actions of others, instead of addressing the causes of our psychological insecurities?

How many of us claim responsibility for the consequences of our beliefs? Such as believing in an outer authority figure that is only conditionally approving and/or accepting? The consequences of beliefs such as this, are living in constant states of insecurity, which in turn effects our behavior, our social skills and our relationship skills?

On a quantum level, like attracts like. A positive magnetic field will always attract a positive pole; a negative magnetic field will attract a negative pole. We "reap as we sow" in other words.

We sowed "worthlessness" for decades in our pursuit of material placebos to fill the holes caused by psychological insecurities and ~walla~, the economy goes down the tubes and "worth-less-ness" is manifested in experience.

We surrender our lives and decision making over to outer authorities, which is a choice of self denial and self betrayal and ~walla~ end up experiencing a betrayal of our interests.

Simple cause and effect if we care to delve deep enough into our conscious and subconscious states in order to realize it.

Maybe you are right nobody can quantify consciousness and that’s it; are you really that easily satisfied? First when you ask to pinpoint something that means that it is static; you cannot measure, quantify something living, something which is changing; what you are really asking is can I have a concept an idea, something immovable so that I can work with it; thoughts are being exchanged, some discarded for different ones and you tell that man that he is just the same when you met him long ago, then you might as well kill him; you see a part of our extension of this kind of belief is shown through mans execution; if we are a sane society we would never come to this, we would think that we would have to be rational and to resolve these problems is the rational thing to do and then we would have a different consciousness all together: Consciousness is not a concept and I am not criticizing you sir epicurean, but when you say the above it means you have accepted something you don’t really know if it is true or not; I could never remain there with confusion without seeing it first, GET TO WORK: you see this is far more of a work than what sir Randy proposes, when it comes to societal work there is someone to show you how through training or education and so Sir Randy you are saying start a business and feed people and that is what our country needs; what we are talking of is something much more vast perhaps something that is absolutely necessary for every human being to live in peace, peace is something that cannot be whole and limited to any border; it is this kind of search for national security that instabalizes other nations; And what sir randy really means is change or go back to what we used to do and so essentially refusing change:
you see the rich are exploiting those who have less and use them to get to where they are and there is less and less to go around, creating the poor, the have not, the have less and so more is required of you sir Randy
Most of us are searching to have something more than somebody else, a better position, a climb to the top, desiring greatness and somehow when we are there we maybe think of the less fortunate, package it up and say we are philanthropic, the problem is really our desire to have more, that is USAs big problem with credit cards and that kind of life which leads to such consumption, selfishness, which many also became poorer as a result of their own desires, aesthetical house material and so that man is asking you can you take me out of this situation or I dont want to loose what I have already and blame and pass the responsibility and that maybe is you sir Randy,I don’t know? You see this is affecting other countries greatly, Greece and the others greed, selfishness creates the poor and all sorts of problems; so you are asking me amongst all of this to be ordinary and go back to what we have been doing, so much for American Individualism cause what you are proposing is not possible; you accept that if you want and carry on I won’t stop you

How do we quantify transfix-ion with the perceived environment? suppose we do not quantify at all and we do not use the word transfix cause it implies exclusion, but we say to be completely attentive throughout living, my environment and myself and my relationship to the environment and back and forth and the environment meaning everything not of me; So how is one to do that? What comes in the way? can we say that awareness cannot be of me? what we are saying is that can awareness derive from the me? It does not derive from the environment and you would not expect it to; it cannot derive from school, school is a product of thought and the many other thoughts, knowledges, experiences which make me up; one does not go to school and expect to be aware, ones goes to school to learn, gather and hold an occupation; why is it that we have separated learning from awareness, is not awareness a part of self learning? Something all of us can do in these commentaries; but it is not enough that you watch, read, cause that would be partial, just as the general education is; so is it possible to watch, observe oneself and when you are watching there must be something that occurs before or while watching, reading but can one be aware of what is taking place entirely, throughout ones day, now, not in intercept or delay?

It's funny, but I've just read (for the first time) your response to Achem's and Echo's "plea" for better writing from us, and we both--you and I--responded in nearly identical fashion, except that I appealed to English and you appealed to...well, what would you call this?

"So when you are reading if that is what you are doing you are tiring yourself why, is it just too much for you? So you are asking the writer to make it simple, is that correct?"

That was your response to Achem, before I said anything. As to why I first wrote what I did, it was to educate, in the face of an (admittedly benign) charge. As for why I apologized, that will be between myself and Achem should he ask for an explanation of my intention. As for my response to you, you shall have it in your own words again, and from the same post:

"I’m clear that if you see this as a rant or in any way then your reading won’t matter, but it’s not so simple with you is that correct? you want the writer to alter himself to something which you have accustomed yourself to already, a way, a pace of writing that you know and so you are seeking to know more of the known, something you can recognize and then you say I don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t make sense and naturally cause we are talking of something different then it is commonly known, so can you put that aside and read carefully? You are expecting something, demanding something and so the barrier is you, not grammar; I mean how could I know what is not making sense to you; it is not up to me, it is up to you to clear it up, why would I need to do it?"

Or, as Dr. Johnson summed it up, "I've given you an answer, sir . I am not obliged to give you an understanding." (Not that my retort to Achem needed clarification, nor that I have any explaining to do to you, Eric.)

Nobody can quantify/pinpoint consciousness, it is a state of awareness, a state of becoming, and humans have the distinction of being aware of themselves, there own thoughts.

Yes, many levels of consciousness. I suppose the best way to balance the duality is to try to live in the "now" as much as possible.

Because after all, there is really nothing else except the "now" the past disappears every nanosecond, the future, according to what events or probable actions a person undertakes to form his upcoming reality has not arrived as yet.

Sorry to temporarily change the direction of this conversation but dont you agree that every person waxes and wanes in an out of consciousness (self aware within their own consciousness)many times daily? working with the amazing 'theorem' that logical thinking and consciousness are connected by an inverted relationship. Which seems to be really true? my question is this. How do we effectively balance this duality? and How do we quantify Transfixion with the perceived environment? assuming that this doesn't help the situation.

I wonder laowho if you are aware of your reaction and to what point you took it, not whether he accepts your apology; you see a care accident occurs with frustrated, aggressive drivers and they kill, fight or argue with each other and carelessly a driver maybe kills a little girl; the other day a man moving the lawns chopped a child's leg of, however no one will be physically hurt here but it is in this same sense that we commit such careless actions and an apology has no place there; one concerns themselves with the what was done and feeling the guilt this kind of obsession can destroy a man, so you see the emotions to all of this; but are you aware and are you serious so that this does not take place any longer; the apology can be easily accepted with regard to what takes place on here; but you like others probably accept that emotions are a part of ones life, that they are logical, that they make sense of things and so one will deal in this argumentative, insulting, hurting to feeling sorry routine which most of us repeat so much in our lives; no routine is logical, no habit, nothing repeating is logical, its irrational and that one can see for oneself; not to offend
Sensitivity and intelligence are not logical, even a devious
deceitful man can be logical with regard to what he wants to accomplish, but in his life he is just as irrational, illogical as anyone else; intelligence does not rely on logic, in fact it is much simpler, Look first...

I just spotted another mistake I made, but it's a simple double-up that got by because I didn't proof it. So if you can spot these two hiccups in my writing, I'll give you an A. If you manage somehow to find more, I'll do you the favor of grading your writing.

Sorry Occam was already taken? Perhaps you should use a dictionary, and look up "paragraph." What I expressed is a single and complete thought (ever have one?). And my syntax, grammar, and even punctuation are impeccable, I'm sorry to say. At least that's what the faculty at the university where I teach believes, or I wouldn't be chairing our English department. It's true--in my first post at this particular link I missed a key (can you spot it?), but I won't apologize for thinking in paragraphs, or even in chapters when I'm really on. I suggest you read better books. Paragraphs aren't for the eye, or for the page, so if you can't read, and you persist in making ad hominem attacks of hubris, at least get a dictionary so you can pick better fights.

It does not matter to me that you read; I’m clear that if you see this as a rant or in any way then your reading won’t matter, but it’s not so simple with you is that correct? you want the writer to alter himself to something which you have accustomed yourself to already, a way, a pace of writing that you know and so you are seeking to know more of the known, something you can recognize and then you say I don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t make sense and naturally cause we are talking of something different then it is commonly known, so can you put that aside and read carefully? You are expecting something, demanding something and so the barrier is you, not grammar; I mean how could I know what is not making sense to you; it is not up to me, it is up to you to clear it up, why would I need to do it? So when you are reading if that is what you are doing you are tiring yourself why, is it just too much for you? So you are asking the writer to make it simple, is that correct? What would you like me to clear up? There are many questions put forth throughout these comments

I'm sure that this question is amusing to many women and with all respect women seem to be taking the Authoritative position on what emotions are and stress their importance; why do that? Are you girls aware of this? It is not said that they are not important, but why not find out what they are, what you are? It is clear that when they are there they are very consuming, and the more you emphasize them you say I am happy with this and then why find out? you see if you were sensitive you could not be emotional at the same time, a sensitive mind is like that towards emotions and it does not exclude: emotion is something temporary like a chemical reaction, so when we say reactions that does not exclude chemicals, love is not a chemical and maybe something that can be created in a lab in the future, love cannot be recreated or stored or fused with something else, it is by it own where it stands and no thing can approach it, we are talking about something much more vast that a few memories, chemical reactions your brain creates, love is not created in the brain but when the brain is very sensitive there is where love can be, then you do not search for it as you do your whole lives, and what you are searching is from your own desire, idea, of what you think love is which leads to great disappointment and like in many relationships the two become mad at each other, unsatisfied, bitter and wish they had not met and had kids together, poor kids what they have to live with most of you: I am saying this and I really hope you really look into this deeply, or please do not at least in your lives be mad, resentful etc…. at each other when you are the cause of your unhappiness and at least let it remain with you where it belongs, so that it does not pass with your kids or your wives or husbands or anyone you form your relationships with; that is enough for me please I have put so much to this just read it carefully

You are asking whether the confusion lies with the word. You are talking about something in scientific terms we are asking what are feelings? Do you feel me? That is the confusion, so we want to find out what is it actually? The scientists, the technicians, the psychiatrists form definitions and we have become so insensitive to (what is) actually, a feeling implies something felt, do we ever feel another's pain or does the emotion concern oneself with one’s own sympathy, ones reaction to the thing and when someone tells you about their troubles do you listen to their suffering? Or is one concerned with ones thoughts, sadness, emotions, can any listening take place, have you ever sat listening to someone? Has anyone ever approached you and what happened? have you ever gone outside to watch the people, watch yourself, watch the workers coming home, the woman with many kids by herself, and you must watch it cause there is no term in that, no word to that, the word is a dead thing, something sensitive is not limp, a sensitive mind is aware, not an emotional mind, cause one must watch, observe life and any movements of your own and it is gone, what is stillness?

‘Are feelings logical?’.............Reminds me of Chomsky's famous statement, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," and all he was tryin to prove was that grammar has nuthin to do with meaning in language.

"The more you look for truth outside of yourself, the further away it gets." The Cartesian dualism of schizophrenic thought will tie anyone's panties in a knot. And so long as we think in juxtaposition, or try to nail anything to a wall, we'll continue to be at odds with ourselves, each other, and even the universe we think we're contemplating. For me it's all about the mystery and awe-inspiring absurdity that, at the very least, we ARE the universe (stardust as Sagan popularized it) contemplating itself. We have to be wary of those--from Dawkins to Chopra--who would cast this in the light of some new-age soap opera, as if we're only capable of knowing by apposition. Honestly--haven't you noticed how loaded the language can be of even the most well-informed and -produced documentaries can be? "Super-massive black holes...the most destructive force in the universe...," until we learn that they also create the necessary conditions for solar system formation, etc. Besides, of the total electro-magnetic spectrum (that we know of so far), were it to be a roll of film that stretched from Los Angeles to Seattle, the visible portion of that (for us) would be but a single frame. Who's kidding whom? Science can be as dogmatic as was the Church during the inquisition. Where's the "truth" in that? A lot of scientists have no sense of their "discipline's" own history, especially when they speak in hallowed tomes about some day "arriving" at some ultimate reality? To apply their own "scientific method" (which varies from discipline to discipline) to their own hopes or claims, I don't think I'm wrong to ask, "Really? When has any science ever been conclusively, unalterably right about anything?" There is no "there" there. And I think that's pretty cool.

@Eric. Are you saying that there is confusion between the terms feelings and sensitivity? I know that there is confusion in my definitions and questions. The question has to be formulated in a better workable way.

you see the answer lies in your question, is it a question or a reaction? when you ask that question does it accompany an answer? or do you already have a opinion, idea or conclusion which you hold? then logically we can say why ask the question at all? a reaction itself implies something after the fact, are you aware of yourself when someone says something that goes against what you think do you see what is taking place or are you quick to jump and state what you want to say; perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or perhaps you dont see the terrible confusion that is made? the question really one can ask is, is it possible to be sensitive, not emotional to what someone says, even if it is an insult or a compliment? Does that insult, or compliment make me fall in love with myself or hate the other? you see what one hates, or loves about someone else is really ones own problem, you cannot hate me I am living, you cannot bring your emotions to me cause the moment they are there I am gone, just like when you watch a cloud and it moves, changes so much and you are caught up in a particular shape, what happens? but one does not hate or love that cloud, it has not given you flowers or hurt some one you know, so that is the difficulty, love is not something petty as an emotion, there can only be love when the mind is capable of complete sensitivity, silence, stillness, when you do not distort and in your looking you do not create anything of the thing, when you are looking at it and when you do not suppress it or condemn or control it like many parents do with their kids then you can be loving, Feeling
thats enough for me it should be very clear by now

Then what makes us logical or rational? Knowledge is a part of the memory and the memory based on experience and knowledge that is what makes us rational and logical, and all are brain functions.

And you can also have a logical emotional response to things.Most emotional responses are the most logical.Being rational is a logical reaction to things after experience memory tells you that you will get more out of being rational.

That’s silly epicurean logic, a percentage to the logic of feelings? Are you confused with logic, is Logic a part of the brain? I wonder if you see that you are implying that an emotion being logical implies that logic is a part of the brain, are you sure about that? If it was, than why is man so irrational, reacting? it is very difficult to deal with a emotional, angry, irrational person rationally, first they must be calm and whatever the feeling which is there must subside, pass; you see emotion takes the mind from what is and concerns it with itself, its own feelings about the thing; to be sensitive is something totally different and does not exclude the thing, in fact it is only the thing and no you or your feelings and then one can give love, attention to the whole of it, or your wife won’t tell you that you talk crap and instead listen, not reacting.

Oh. This doc still sucks btw, (sorry V) for reasons mentioned before.
Kudos to Rainbow medicine for nailing this stuff in 3 paragraphs. Philosophy baketh no bread but it certainly lets you drop some cool arguments.

Blah. I talk cr*p sometimes, or as my 1st ex-wife says 'most of the time'.

Feelings are 100% logical and necessary. If its possible to formulate the question in that way. Located in the amygdala (central part of the brain) they provide responses to external information in half the time it takes to reach the logical frontal cortex area of the brain. Ref:TDF 'the Brain'. Hence providing answers (sometimes wrong) much more quickly than logical reasoning.

How cool is that.

This is my last post on the subject as i am tired of talking to myself. Goodnight.

You guys are funny...this has been like watchin fish argue about whether water is wet, how it got to be wet, or even wonderin if it could also be dry. But does a fish even know water is wet? If not (which is likely the case, at least insofar as y'all are usin' that verb, then maybe it isn't. I mean, a fish oughta know...

"As long as your focus of inquiry is restricted to the human individual, you may logically uphold the (otherwise absurd!) notion that consciousness (the ‘what is it like’-quality) is simply a superfluous ‘something’ that nature has added on to the material, flesh-and-blood organism – that organism being the site of the serious work of staying alive and well."

I like this comment except for the 'superfluous something' statement. 'What is it like' is an important question that gives insight and information in individual and group situations. It is not superfluous.

A big problem arises in his basic defintion. Mead has 3 partial definitions, as if things aren't complicated enough already. Also Consciousness = percieve + interact = self awareness, is starting to make a bit more sense. it certainly makes things a bit more interesting. Thanks.

Rainbow Medicine. I am working from the definition of conscious being the ability to perceive and interact with the the environment, whereas you have added the requirement of self awareness. Why is this extra definition required? and isn't self awareness just a by product of the other two? Tranfixion is great. I love it. some people have the dial turned up more than others!

There are mechanics in the structure of conscious. Your senses absorb information, the brain interprets, this affects your paradigm (outlook or point of view),which effects the percieve part of conscious and so on, but you mean logic in a different way. In the moment? From the minute you wake up in the morning you are conscious. You see spot the dog running up the garden path to deliver the morning newspaper. I dont see this as illogical.

This absolutely inspiring, i was thinking at the end of this doc. When peter Russell explained the concept of the I and related to god i was exited and I was reminded of the scripture in the bible; 1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us 1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. that is amazing i will enjoy my consciousness.

Thanks for your wonderful response. Its really interesting when you say that there is some kind of inverted realationship between concious and logic. Maybe you're right when you say practice is a good way to approach this duality.

Epicurean logic. Clarity is not made to be consumed but it can consume you.
plant the seeds of consciousness so as not to miss a thing.

when there is transfixion with your perceived environment (hightend awareness) there is very little possibility of logical thinking having any value in the decisions you make, it actually decreases your ability to be conscious (self aware ie: AWARE of what is going on within the confines of your awareness). I prefer the word practical as you need to practice to know what is practical it cannot be reasoned out. and you find that which is practical, is also generally illogical.

Wow, thats really interesting Rainbow Medicine. I usually find that clarity is a rare commodity. But when i 'get it' like you say logic and reasoning seem to fall in line, and jump in whenever they are needed. By applying logic alone you miss some of the whole experience that we crave.

When you start to see things clearly you will see that clarity is but an emotional experience. Where is absolute freedom? What are these chains and what holds them in place? It seems there can only be one freedom.

he is trying to reason and use his brains to figure out his experiences. any good musician will tell you that using reasoning, analysis and brain power (so to speak) to create an image (veiwpoint) is just far too slow and disjointed, just like this guy.... soooo much effort to very little avail. The brains reasoning power was never designed to make sense of consciousness. The search for truth is the deliberate obscuring of your capabilities in order to relinquish responsibility. We are all presented with the truth at every moment. become aware of the minds desire to fit all things into its limited framework or very simple things could take up hours of your awareness and energy and not allow you to use feelings to see things clearly in only an instant.

I agree. "peter maybe she should examine this idea as well" That is a sound truth and I have gone above and beyond for it but the problem is not mine it is her not wanting to give up the negative things she likes that are damaging our pockets and trust. I dont know if its a midlife crisis or what but I do not want and cannot have the illegal negative around me.
Its a tuff bind. I wont compromise my freedom for anything. Its pretty bad brotha. I cant seem to compete with her habits and she wont get help or let me help. Helping just turns animosity against me. Sux , dude.

It would appear to me that this is an attempt to link "consciousness'' as an agent of 'first cause'. The premise being that matter (whether organic or inorganic" came into existence (spawned) as a rresult of consciousness or awareness. This idea would make evolution a process of consciousness, rather than natural selection and adaptability to climate and environmental phenomena.

But, I would just submit this: take it or not, I have no place in your life so... I am just putting this "out there".

When you were married you took an oath. Oaths are very important to our species. The words of your mouth are the very nature of our culture. Indeed, the word "culture", in the latin root means speech, (essentially).

If you are a man, you can make this work if you want to. It takes great strength to be a man or a woman. (and maybe she should examine this idea as well...?).

I'm sorry, of course it is NONE of my business... I just do not relate to our "disposable" society.

We need to. All the things you listed (racism, sexism, superstition, etc…) seem to be all that the general population can talk about. Like you said, we dont need them anymore , bu the media and the powers that be spend alot of time making these things the issue, which doesn't help when you have a general population of followers. Its a shame.

@Randy.. i totally agree with you and everything you've said, we should use science to better our planet, period. I was just saying that we have evolved to a point where we, (or most of us at least) need a reason to care, and that's where philosophy comes in, surviving just for survivals sake just seems a bit trivial and pointless to most, especially given the suffering and torment most of us suffer at one point or another in our life times, why would we wish that on future generations, even you're an idealist hoping that we can make a decent world for your family's future through science and math, but is it likely that we will eliminate war and hunger anytime soon?, not really let's be realistic. So yes, it's in our DNA to propagate the species, but it's also become part of our nature to want to know why. I'm just saying, It is what it is... ;o).. but remember I'm with you all the way

life is not philosophy and no system of thought, school of thought can contain it in its libraries, those are all small parts of the life which we live, which are contained by the very thing we seek to describe in our words, define in our small confines of knowledge, institutions which are all partial, when one is free of the authority, the institution,then one can truly understand what it means to stand alone and then learning which is beyond that can take place which does not conform according to any ones thought, or idea and then there can be something truly which is free unlike the societies which is the institution,the organization you live in, the one you seek to change, to make free, and the very desire of that freedom is from the chains which welded the link

ask the politicians what makes the people decide,why would a free mind bother with choice? life is not a color, is it that we have gone so far from what is right, become so complex,and there is so much unclarity in the way that we just do not see it, but if you see unclarity then surely it must be what it is

I'm not saying hunter gatherers didn't philosophise, I'm just saying that when your entire existence is based on yourself finding food and feeding your Family/tribe, then philosophy is probably not the top of your to do list..;o)

'and at the end of the day people should ultimately decide for themselves what they believe given what they have experienced and what helps them get through their existence.'

And that is exactly what people do. When you take other peoples ideas on board without trully analysing and beliving them for yourself, you find that it is exactly these ideas that filter away at the earliest sight of troubles. Martin Luther king said it well in his walking east when you think you are walking west speach.

@Epi.. thanks for the answer, the movie was 'leaves of grass' i think it was called with Ed Norton where he plays twin brothers, i don't think he was directly quoting Epicurus but that might be where the idea came from..

when i say questions must ultimately be answered by oneself i don't mean stuff like what something sounds like or how something works, i was thinking more in a philosophical sense, and at the end of the day people should ultimately decide for themselves what they believe given what they have experienced and what helps them get through their existence..
maybe I'm just rambling... but hey, what do I know..;o)

you are very kind to let me correct you i mean it, I question your questions ;) do you accept rebellious that all questions are to be answered by oneself? do you accept that? what does this make of the question and answer? is there a separation made between the question and answer? is the answer separate from the question? Is the question just awaiting an answer from somebody, an authority, a somebody who is supposed to know and therefore this is my question to you, but as we have said that this is our question :) Do you just accept that?

If something is false, dont open or close yourself to it, just see it for what it is? But if you accept it, you allow it right? But if someone comes along and says this is absolutely so and you reject it, then how do you know?

If you say you are not smart enough, than see why, find out what is causing you to say that? What is the role of the authority, the one who says they know? We have said that the this is our question, so what place if any does the authority have in all of this? do you see this my friend? do it and you will see :) but you must be serious

'that death is simply a return to the natural state we were in before life, which is one of nothingness, where there is no pain or suffering, or emotions of any kind, so it probably makes more sense be scared of life more than death.'

I am not sure which movie you talk about. But the original quote is from Epicurus-300bc,

@Eric.. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to fully understand what you wrote, but it looks like you're saying that our experiences form our opinions on what we're told or how we perceive what we are told, if so i totally agree.
And then you go on to say (if i understand correctly?) that all questions must ultimately be answered by oneself, and you must open yourself up to all possibilities but at the same time question everything you're told, and accept death as a natural part of life. am i even close?

i recently saw a movie where there was a quote, i can't remember the whole thing or where it was from but it basically said (and I'm paraphrasing) that death is simply a return to the natural state we were in before life, which is one of nothingness, where there is no pain or suffering, or emotions of any kind, so it probably makes more sense be scared of life more than death.. something like that, if anyone knows it better then you're welcome to correct me..;o)

many of you say life is an illusion and you seem to accept that idea, but death is certain, there is no illusion in that, the illusion is anything opposing that, the escape which is cultivated by our minds, our consciousness, the religiously cultivated consciousness, as is this mans who made the presentation; the unknown is far to vast to be conceptualized, materialized into something of human origin, one cannot describe the unknown with the known which is what most of us are doing, which is deceitful to each other, to present something that no matter how much you think, search for you can never remain in possession of it, the mind seeks to posses the true, the divine, the beautiful, the grand, but it is just the minds selfish, petty desires, fears, attachments, its fears of not knowing or not receiving a answer or that it will be gone someday, so it will cling to anything and call it theirs, but anything you cling to, attach yourself to is never something one can call theirs, it was in place to begin with, static, the truth is neither that or whatever one wants to call it, but in that way one can just suffocate themselves from truth, become delusional and that kind of old when the mind is no longer fresh, and you can see that yourselves; this is enough for me

@REBELLIUS and all: yes because we are faced with the fact of our mortality it is always a question of ours, not something that remains for philosophy or science to answer; it is your question just as mine and we share that, and what relationship does this have with the kind of consciousness we share? What kind of a mind requires this answer? Why is it that we are so afraid of death?
Question everything and forgive me those of you who have heard this before, but one really must do that, not because I say so or anyone else cause naturally it is what a free mind is, the consciousness is not this concept that these people are leading you to which is a material conclusion masked with metaphysical appearance, and you can find that out through what it is not, if you can see vividly, but most of you are entering everything with your own conclusions, opinions, pre conceived notions and you either accept or reject the information that comes your way; to accept is not the opposite of rejection, cause it is another idea, conclusion or whatever that is accepted and inevitably such a mind is rejecting, which is a mind that is conclusive in every act, a mind which is free there is no resistance, friction, distortion, rejection and it is only then one can see the false for what it is, so that there can be the true;
throughout your lives you learn so much, memorize without questioning, and you are exposed to so much conditioning, to the false, to the deceits, the lies, the tricks and so the mind must be sensitive and one must be aware, negative not binding yourself to anything, even ones delusions of an after life cause it is then when you cease to live: Death is a part of that life, something that for most of us remains unquestioned till an old age; so can one put an end to ones many different kind of objections?cause what is it that is really stopping you from perception, insight in the truth of this matter? you need not go towards insight, truth, cause that will take time but do what it is that makes the false cease

Dude , Ido make more than you. What degrees do you have? Im worth more with my lil finger than you are. Oh wait , I dont get mad.. Go to sleep before yor head comes through your anus and out yor mouth. You went from a good opinion to alot of running of the mouth.
See you in the morning.

Im forced to be political to get word done. So by the end of the day Im looking for a target. I vent on people on the internet because 1) its anonymous 2) its quiet 3) i can do it will doing paperwork.

I have no personal feeling toward you, its just a game to me. I am nothing more then the local troll.

@Randy - Good try but a miss. When I get bored I push buttons. I like to see if I can get people worked up. I find it odd that you would archive my posts. I suggest you go through them again and retry your psycho/economic analysis.

@Rebelliuss - I read your post wrong. I thought you said if we died time becomes more or less irrelevant. If we never died would we even care about appointments. If we had all eternity would we even set dates or just the off chance that we would eventually run into each other be good enough.

@Rebelliuss - Yeah not much need for time when we are dead. Even though we dont think we need time we still need time for our biological processes to work. It might not be the most accurate clock but or heart has to keep time.

the way i see it, the way we perceive time is related to our own mortality, if we never got old or died, time would become more or less irrelevant, except maybe for keeping appointments.
it's more of a philosophic question than a scientific one in my eyes, but hey, what do i know?

@HM
I do what I have to HM, But if you must know, I have a Bach in IT a Bach in world History , ASE in mechanics and Ive been doin time , You think you are like me , you aint like , you a punk. Understand this , who I am and what Ive been through , you cant learn in school and cant get a late start on. Dont question me,my friend. It would make a more peaceful and more unbiased conversation.

@eireannach666 - "Its crucial that we , as humans realize that we are nothing compared to the vastness of the universe."

Im willing to bet that off the top of your head you dont know how close the closest galaxy is. Or the distance from the sun to Neptune. How about naming the distance of a few oort cloud objects.

I bet if I was standing next to you you couldn't answer any of these question. What a fool you would be stammering in your own lack of knowledge while blithering about how humans should realize vastness.

@HM
"bong Im willing to bet that your contributions to society are up there with my local ATM."

Your just running your mouth without anything to stand on. What is the worst that has ever been done to you , or by you? You wouldnt bust a grape in a food fight. Dont act like you been there , man.I know you are some- what intelligent but dont be so arrogant. It kills your point when you try and justify lack of life experience.

@eireannach666 - Im willing to bet that your contributions to society are up there with my local ATM.

How about we kill all the dumb people with sad jobs and let the educated people live without religious bias. That way we dont have a bunch of ignorant low class citizens that start believing in some weird "Quantum Cult"

See, Id just off everybody. Everybody who doesnt want science. I mean all of them. Those without the morals or principles of being " good " people. We dont need them . We need a natural disaster to wipe the population down, so that we are not " spinning our wheels " when it comes to progression. We shouldt be so kind to superstition and idiocy. The dumbing down of American society just to be politicaly correct is a constant obstacle and has to stop , in order for our society and intellegence to progress.

@Randy - "But don’t you see how that makes our lives so much more important than if there was some ridiculous concept of an afterlife?"

You are substituting Carl Sagan for god. You like Sagans words because they make you feel good. You seem to transfer some type of anger onto one faith while trying to support some kind of weird SAGAN-faith.

Dont believe in god.. believe in Sagan. Dont you see how much better he is to worship then the god that makes me mad?

@Randy
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Why should we be so arrogant as to think we are supreme. We are , as the song says, dust in the wind .
There is nothing to be , but we live to die and benifit our kind through enlightenment and the passing down of knowledge . Which I pass down or we pass down to the ones that come.

I will quote.
"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it.Carl Sagan Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."-- Carl Sagan

Thanks my brother , Tiocfaidh ar la .HM, you speak what is truth to you but dont knock us that want to see another scientific view. We only are open tonew theories and if they get proven wrong or right we still like to entertain . Better than entertaining a fag god , right?

I agree but nobody has "time" explained and I was saying jus that. But you cant debate if you have no wiggle room with whom you debate. Hence you have your outlook, and this whole debate was to see anothe point of view.

Thats why we were asking Achems , because of his knowledge on the other side of QT that Iam just a novice on , but am open too. Nobody is riding his nutz or yours. Just looking at different points of views . Like yours. Dont get so defensive , brotha. It doest help the cause.

Well shyte man, didnt know you felt that way. Everyone disregard my last post. I was trying to be civil . But whatever , man. I was just aying not to throw away anothers opinion . Like I said , Im not convinced.

"They"Dont respect my view." That sounds like you dont even give anyone elses opinion a thought and maybe you are just talking s%$#? Maybe.

Not trying to disrespect , but you shouldn't be so quick to be so stubborn . It will serve you right.

Dont respect my view. Assume it is wrong. Look for the holes. Dig for inconsistencies. Analyze every word. Built your retort. Write it down then read it again. If your not 100% sure make it simpler. Then read my view again. Did you cover your bases. When you are confident you clearly state your belief, submit it.

Its all a brain game. Like any other game the more you play it the better you get.

H_M lol. You clearly lack the creativity required to accept a proposition that you disagree with and just see where it goes, for the purpose of exploring different ideas.

just because you dont like an idea doesnt make it wrong to open it out for discussion. the world does not revolve around you sir, and your atomistic attitude. it is all about you isn't it? Other peoples ideas have no value in your world. this characteristic is almost certainly what makes you lacking in charm and creativity.

And yes science is about taking crazy leaps of faith and then testing the results, your incessant butting in and harrying of Achems didnt even let us get to that part of things.

But hey you dont care. why should you? what have you got to gain? nothing. and that is exactly what you do gain.nothing.

Guys firstly you jumped into a conversation that was between me and Achems then you proceed to f*ck it up completely without letting him finish what he had to say and to follow though with his reasoning. If you dont like it go and post somewhere else.

H_M i appreciate that your aggressive intellect doesnt allow you sit quietly and just listen if you disagree with the commentry, but noboby said that you have to accept the ideas as truth, i dont, but the point was that it was a hypothesis to be explored and played with. Isnt that the foundations of the scientific method that your clearly hold dear?

@Randy
"They"But, you know, I think HaTe_MacHine is right…He’s kind of a hippie!Sorry, Dio died… I am a grumpy old man…"

Sip time for Dio. Im already there brotha.

HM"
Its a very creative side of “religion” to actually use something complicated like physics to promote there beliefs in supernatural. Modern people have an innate trust in “science”. So you can use this trust to convince the week minded into believing something that has no bases in reality. If it makes them feel good they dont care if it makes no since."

Its a very creative side of "religion" to actually use something complicated like physics to promote there beliefs in supernatural. Modern people have an innate trust in "science". So you can use this trust to convince the week minded into believing something that has no bases in reality. If it makes them feel good they dont care if it makes no since.

Come on Achems dont put up the mission aborted sign just yet. I know its hard when everyone is on your case... See what you gone and done now... I have been patiently waiting to get rid of time for hours now. Blah...

I remember this from what Ive researhed,"“It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things.” -Barbour

Okay, gentlemen, this is as far as I go. Some of you are not ready for this.

Snake oil. my arse!!

I suggest you get Barbour's book, "the end of time", libraries even have it, lot of good maths and geometry in it. And if you want to bitch, take it up with him, he stands on the merits of his scientific credentials.

Hey , take a sip for Ronnie. I am not convinced on this yet.
Do you need a hug brotha? I got you. Dont let a bad thing dictate your mood. You are so much better and much mor intelligent then that. Love ya man. No disrespect.Cheer up.Here Ill take a sip now.
Slainte.

@Achems
"bong Every possible configuration of the Universe, past, present and future, exists separately and eternally. We don’t live in a single Universe that passes through time. Instead we– or many slightly different versions of ourselves–simultaneously inhabit a multitude of static, everlasting tableaux that include everything in the Universe at any given moment."

So you agree that Time is possibly an emergent conceptthat arises secondary to the presence of motion and forces. It is proposed here that the motion and forces are due to expansion of the universe. Slower expansion of space around large masses like earth and sun could be considered as the cause of slower time linking time to the expansion of space ?

It blows my mind that when someone mentions a old man in the sky might have made the world everyone jumps on them. When someone says 'there is a quantum meta paradigm in the universe and it it is the micro tubular consciousness which cannot be explained' everyone is in awe.

I can explain consciousness... I can demonstrate it for you. If you believe that consciousness is anything but 3 pounds of fat between your ears, put a shotgun to your head pull the trigger and come talk to me about how your consciousness wasn't splatter all over the nearest wall.

Learn to criticize this pseudo-science snake-oil.

I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes.

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. "

Barbour theorizes that time is nothing more than a product of human perception. "Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler taught us that the Earth moves and rotates while the heavens stand still", Barbour says, quote, "Now I think we must go further, to a deeper reality in which nothing at all, neither heavens or Earth moves. Stillness reigns".

The crux of Barbour's view. Every possible configuration of the Universe, past, present and future, exists separately and eternally. We don't live in a single Universe that passes through time. Instead we-- or many slightly different versions of ourselves--simultaneously inhabit a multitude of static, everlasting tableaux that include everything in the Universe at any given moment. Barbour calls each of these possible still-life configurations a "NOW"!

So your going with Einstein H_M i guess my definition is just Newtonian. When you say 'Time has no more importance then say up or left' i would say that up and left are also important. Maybe equally so as you say.

Butting in on this on... Time is just a place holder in spacetime. To find an object is to find 4 pieces of information about it. Simple height width debt and when. I like to imagine an object having 4 dials associated with it. Each dial can change 1 of the 4 pieces of information about the object. The fundamental properties of spacetime says that no one dial is anymore significant then the other.

Since our brain is wired to function in the wild where time is much less significant then the 3 other elements we make time out to have special property. Time has no more importance then say up or left.

If we were eternal but stationary we would have philosophers describing the unnatural process of turning around...

Achems- well we can look at it in terms of Newtons absolute time or Einstein different for each observer, but i think that the common sense human scale view as a measurement of past and future is what makes sense to me the most.

So i would say that time is the way we humans measure the spacing between events. Thats about as good a definition as i can give.

Aristotle may be th closest to understanding time. e speculated that time may be motion. He also said that motion could be slower or faster but not time. Aristotle did not have the privilege of knowing about Einstein’s relativity in which time also becomes amenable to change. Similarly when Einstein was working to develop theory of general relativity and proposed the revolutionary idea that mass curves space he did not know that the universe was expanding. This discovery by astronomer Edwin Hubble came 13 years after Einstein had published his theory of General Relativity. Had Einstein known of this great discovery he may have incorporated these ideas into his theories. Conceptually it is easier to derive space curvature in an expanding universe as an area of slower expansion under the influence of gravitons. One of the most dramatic aspects of the universe is that it is expanding and the presence of motion, forces and curved space-time happens in the expanding space. In general relativity matter produces curvature in space-time, this concept can also be extended to moving objects and it can be shown that moving objects can also curve space-time. - Paul Davies source

Well, I'll jump in, only if I do not have to hide my cat! Kind of leery talking about this stuff!

Will start of slow, this part can be backed up by "Julian Barbour" a theoretical physicist, on his book "The End of Time". Have studied his work that states time is illusion.

According to Barbour, everything is already done, past, present and future, all is static, every single "nows" pasts ,futures is frozen, not in time, (because Barbour says that time is illusion). say like snapshots that we pullout of a picture album, in the vast sea of quantum probabilities.

If you want, google "Julian Barbour" to find his work.
If you want me to continue, let me know.

notes: This guy says that some people are concious and some are not (zombies)? what a strange thing to say.

I didn't like his definition of conciousness as he fluttered around many different points and didn't really say anything concrete. I was hoping for a simple clear workable definition.

he questions why any of us has a single concious thought, and i can only suggest that our senses relay info to the brain and the brain interprets this info in a way that we call perception or experience? seems a bit obvious though?

'Electrons are eigenvalues in a wave equation?' That may well be the mathematical description of an electron that was used to postulate the current picture of atoms. As with most of his scientific definitions its all well and good quoting facts but when they are used to support, well i am not sure what they are trying to support to be honest i get the impression that he is trying to blind the viewer with science, in the attempt to give more weight to his philosophy.

Also he calims that our perception of the external world is not the same as it actually is by using scientific examples, but surely there are many examples where the exact opposite is true. for example we percieve a bicycle and know through experience that we can ride it, then we proceed to do so, ergo our experience was correct? I am sure that there are better examples than that but its all i can think of on short notice.

overall very confusing and no answers are given except that 'overall you are conciosness. period.'

'...what makes it what it is? If you were born without any of your senses'

As I see it without your senses there is nothing so i guess i agree with that part if your comment, i should also add that what is without sensation means nothing to me (god falls into that category for me). But to you who has working senses there is something so even though i cannot experience anything, the outside world still exists just not to me. I am not sure where this is going, and i am in the golfish bowl again but your comments seem to make sense.

Please elaborate more when you have the time to do so. In the meantime i will browse this doco.

Here it's the same, after your comment I can surely say it's not as bad as there but it's plain s*** too. There are many religions and cults in Brazil, from all over the world, but the protestant churches are the most filled. And they all preach everything else is devil's work and bla bla bla, and they want the homosexuals killed, and they want psychologists killed, and they want everyone killed. But in my opinion the problem is the politics of church and uneducation of people on how to actually read, and lack of knowledge and (worse) denial of any other knowledge besides their own. Take what's useful, throw away what's stupid.

I can see what's wrong in saying that god created man from clay, and I can see what's wrong in saying that if you murder someone that's the work of the Devil, or worse, the work of god. But I really can't see what's wrong in teaching people to treat each other as if they were yourself, and to love everyone.

Of course since the beginning of the church (which is the real problem to me), it's all control, and it's all politics, it's all power, but to fight fanaticism is to fight the consequences of the problem, not the problem itself.

@Epicurean_Logic

But isn't the state of awareness of my surroundings and the ability to interact with it what makes it what it is? If you were born without any of your senses, I probably could see you and everything, but to you, the world would not exist (at least not as we realize it).

So how can it not be about the individual experience? What you experience is what constitute the world to YOU, and that is what really matter isn't it?

You may want to extend the philosophy quote with my own, if you care to...

"Philosophy bakes no bread!"... but science can bake bread enough to feed the world... if we let it!

Also, you may want to ammend my sentence about consciousness, as it is a badly worded one, I'm afraid, (I write quickly), "the state of awareness of your surroundings and the ability to interact with IT..." I believe is more correct... I don't believe "surroundings" would be considered a plural. Maybe someone could correct me on that.

Thanks caco well said sir and great observation. and thanks for clarifying the U.S. point of view Randy. You must surely be tired of doing so by now. and thanks eire for the constant flow of jokes.

i am just happy that i now know what to say when i get all this conciousness stuff thrown at me. I never usually do. i will say 'philosophy bakes no bread' followed by ' and has 'no nutricious value' oh sorry wrong quotes.

what i will say is my dear man/woman please allow me to reposte to your nebulous utterances thus:-what you refer to is 'the state of awareness of your surroundings and the ability to interact with them' further than that i must respectfully decline to comment.

and after i recover from being slapped down to the ground for my silly wannabee 17th century use of language. i will be happy in the knowledge that i actually have some clue as to what i talk about.

OF course, what you say is extremely and emminately practical. Everyone must have the right to believe what ever they want in the privacy of their homes, as long as it hurts no one or violates their rights.

And that is the point. Over here, in America, the maniacs are quickly taking over the assylum. And as our Empire wans, they become more frantic to take us back to superstition in an attempt to please some imaginary diety to save us. This is historical and happens in every waning Empire through-out history, (boy that was redundant!).

My feeling is, religion is evil in every incarnation, and has no place in the 21st century. We must be rid of this vestigial organ before its cancer destroys our species.

But, hehe... that's just me...

As far as this "movement" goes, well, you, maybe, don't have a cherished relative that has fallen for this stuff, and has basically immersed herself in it so deeply, that she has moved away from her family and isolated herself and her child from us.

This idealogy is easily turned into a cult, (and I believe from first hand knowledge, has been). And it makes weak minded people susceptible to harm.

A couple things, Caco. First, the term "objective-experience" is an oxymoron. Experience, by its very definition, is not objective but subjective.

Now, I believe myself to employ a scientific/critical perspective of the world.Caco does as well, when he gives science credit for employing evidence such as data. The important point to note - as Caco did somwhat ambiguously - is that science's "evidence" is only logical within the paradigm of science. Science as an ontology, one among many, and it would be nieeve to assume that the scientific perspective of the universe is the final destination of some abstract human progress towards objective understanding. For those who are unfimiliar with the jargon I use, ontology is a "way of knowing" the the world around you.Due to the nature o ontologies, any attempt to define our experience will be purely theoretical.

This is where meta-thinking is crucial.an interesting and brilliant theorist to read in this regard it bourdieu. He uses a theory of "habitus" to explain our experences. I could expain further, but I will simply refer all to wikipedia.

In sum - and in line with the theory of habitus - the way we experience the world is based on the effect our past experiences shape our "consciousness," this can be illustrated in a rhetorical question, why are some people jagged and other not? This is extremly vague and broad, but I'm not sure anyone could argue such a perspective being the effect of anything other than prior experiences. Break is over now so I must conclude.

Of course the material world is real, but as the lecturer has said, the thing is that our experience of it cannot represent what it actually is, specially when it comes to objective experience.

Our bodies are so different, and that fact alone expresses how our experience of the world will never be the same. In my chosen profession, which is photography, that is really explicit. Sometimes I go out with my friends on the streets of São Paulo ( I live in Brazil) to take pictures, and when we get together afterwards to show the results to each other, it's funny to see what each person notices, or look at, at the exact same spot, and how our physical bodies have an influence on that as well - let's say height as an example. Of course we are sharing the same space and we are seeing the same people on the streets and the same colours (at least I hope so!), but the idea that someone's height is not going to determine how they experience the environment is just wrong.

Now the levels and deepness of the experience depends on many other things which I'm sure you all know very well.

This website is really cool, I just found it a few days ago, and I've notice how you guys fight between each other to show how one is right or wrong and etcetera, but I'd just like to share something which is really useful to me and helps me to be in peace at all times, which is that I'm always making myself remember that the last time I was sure that I was absolutely right about something, I was, in fact, not.

I'm not religious and I notice how some of them are fanatics, but I notice the exact same type of behaviour coming from the other part as well. It's just plain stupid to discredit science, it has data, it has proof. But I also think it's stupid to throw away good things that religion and philosophy have. Each of these exist for different reason, just put them where they belong to, and enjoy plainly!

Guys, the beers are on me. when i eventually make it to the states( providing they let me thorugh customs) i will find y'all ( see how i practice my sothern U.S. accent) and provide many beers.

and Randy you didnt annoy me at all. To be honest i could sit and listen to talk all day long. noone else on here has you're ability to use language and i will be respectfully ripping off many of your linguistic skills.

That is one of those indefinable terms, like "soul" or "spirit" or "special sauce" on your cheesburger...

Even science, which will go so far as to define it as the state of awareness of your surroundings and the ability to interact with them... will go no farther in trying to define where it comes from or what its "nature" is. They leave that to philosophers.

Mazlo tried in his work on "Phenomenology" but that just kept falling apart into infinite regress under scrutiny.

Right now, it really isn't that important, is my thing. We have it, like sight, (another thing we don't fully understand), it works... so now move on.

Note: sight is not a perfect example, because we are studying it and getting closer everyday to figuring out how it works... and that is important to things like... healing the blind!

Philosophy is great and I study it, but as the saying goes, "Philosophy bakes no bread!"

What in the hell is conciousness? sorry to sound dumb but wiki doesn't really help with this one! subjective experience?? isnt that just the same as experience? what a nebulous and undefinable term. Theres a beer in it for anyone that can give a satisfactory explanation. And NO that doesn't apply to you Achems.

Perpel, perpel, perpel your craft blistfully down the liquid solution, exstatically, exstatically, exstatically, exstatically, life is but an illusion.

Doesn't matter how you sing it, we are all still in the same boat.

And if we disregard it or pretend that what we do doesn't matter or effect others because it isn't real anyway and persuade others to believe the same. That is just a good excuse to become a lazy, irresponsible, uncaring, 600 pound, fat, 'dead beat' dad with an immaginative tale like the Budda but you know what,I bet his son wished he had a bit of conscience. So just BE a sentient being with a heart.

I enjoyed this lecture immensely but I wonder what the revelation is? Is it that everything is everything??.. that reality is a construction on consciousness??... that all our frameworks for reason are frameworks within consciousness?...... Indeed, its all very fascinating finding the endless clever ways in which to say "I am" or "I am god", or god is in everything....etc etc..

I feel these observations and drawn conclusions are no more valuable than insights derivable from most psychedelic experience.

I want to know what project is kicked off from this understanding and in what firm ways can our lives be improved with such knowledge? How is suffering to be reduced? How is an imbalanced human condition to be rebalanced? You see the problem with this lecture is that its like eating rice crackers: no matter what you spread on them, you still feel like you've consumed nothing. All you do is temporarily confuse your appetite.

Having said all of the above, I agree with the virtual reality 'Proto mind' paradigm. Breaking this down would be the first step in a very exciting human journey. I would be very impressed if our intellectuals started finding clever empirical ways of making the unconscious conscious to us all. If they could find ways of allowing each and everyone one of us to experience directly our consciousness then a Consciousness Revolution could really begin.

I wonder; am I really at home, on the computer reading all of this :)
After watching the video and reading the comments, it’s like I have just walked out of the operating room, and after shocking the patient, saying come back to me, he finally does and asks me is that really you, after all the hard work, the energy I put into my job; however it is the patient who is dealing with his own sense of reality

The moment one accepts a theory, or idea or some sort of concept, one begins with a conclusion a finished product, a picture;
What does it mean when one says, we are in the now? What takes place? Someone says we are in the now, and I accept that, interpreting and repeating and repeating, which is of memory, knowledge, past; what relationship does that have with what is? And what does that have to do with awareness, looking? And what effect does the knowledge which I have gathered have on seeing which is now? And can there be seeing which is actual when I have come to the conclusion that there is no reality? One must understand what it means to look, listen, not just peripherally, one cannot go on without it? One must Question everything and does a mind which says I know, question to begin with? Not just pose the question

What are words? Is there a difference between a word and an image? Why is it that we attach words on to the image we have created of the thing?

What is an image? And how does it come into being? What takes place? Why it is, that thing comes to be something that I Know? And when we meet, do we meet with these images we have created of each other? And what effect does this image have on the encounter, the experience which one says they have had? The image is not the thing, but can one be aware, perceive it as it is, not to change it, distort it, or talk about it; and is it possible while reading, to look, observe, be aware of one’s reactions actually, not to record, or remember, to know, but completely, attentively and is only then that something can be said;

One must understand, that even an illusion is something actual, an abstraction of memory, ideas, images, and one must see it for what it is, with no preconceived notions, biases in order to see the falseness of it; one must be aware of the pain, the suffering, the confusion, uncertainty, the wars, the killing, which is actual, which is happening; What is escape? And what is the relationship between, escape, delusion and movement from what is?

anyone viewing can see that this video is just a collection of many writings,knowledge,conclusions, and what is the difference between knowledge and a conclusion? is there a difference at all?

Ladies and gents, my problem with this documentary is conceptual and quite straight forward. Logically, his conception of reality is flawed for a very simple reason. His main premise is that because consciousness (apparently) comes before all else, including matter, time, and space, that it is consciousness that spawns these things. More specifically, he argues that because consciousness comes before the "objective" reality we experience, all that we expierence is not actually as we expierence it.
Now, aside from the problem that he simply has not way of reinforcing his claim that reality isn't as we perceive it (those of you in post secondary education may be familiar with the principle of parsimony, which goes against his claim complicating reality, but of course science is found on a "misconceived" notion of reality)are concepts from physics such as time, space, etc. Furthermore, equations from physics are used to reinforce his argument, yet more complicated notions borrowed from the science he claims is ignorent. If, as he claims, reality as we perceive it is not actually what exists, then how could one possibly use concepts from our interpretation of reality to explain that reality that we mis-interpret? Flaw in logic for the loss :(

I am agreeing with you, on some of your paradigms.
I found it a little hard to decipher some of it, but that may be my fault.

These are what I agree on. Consciousness does not come from matter.
Matter comes from our mutual "Collective Consciousness" I do not care how solid they seem now. They were not, before we formed them, they where empty space and energy. An Atom is basically energy, period.
Now again this is Quantum Mechanics.

Yes people are conscious in O.B.E and even in Lucid Dreams, Another form of consciousness.

Consciousness is generally not variable to us, but in special circumstances it is, Google Aristotle,

I also agree, there is much! more, than what the eye perceives!
Believe it or not, we are very powerful individually, and more so en-mass. I am not putting God into this, because we have different Gods. I say that, without malice.

Greetings to all!
There are alot of silly comments on here, but I'll stick for now to providing my insight on the film.

Beyond the simplistic jokes, (many found funny…), the first 20 minutes in seeing it, I was bored, the next ten minutes I had to discipline myself to stay on it, after that I was like: “Come on, finish already!” Why, you say? For these reasons (and smaller ones not mentioned):
To get the jokes at of the way, even his philosophical definition (!) of a zombi was wrong :)! I mean, saying a zombi does not have consciousness?? How does he know? Has he ever met a zombi? They do in the movies :)
As one may hopefully realize, this is how his logic goes all the way, from leap to leap. I saw 44 minutes of it. No point in seeing any more. It worned me out.
Now,
1) (At 3:55) “right now we could all be plugged into the matrix” and just be having a simulated experience in this room so “we can doubt this is real.”
-----a) Satan, having managed to make people he doesn’t exist, now tells them to doubt the reality around them! And he makes it sound so philosophically intellectual. That is why he is… THE liar.
b) My reply to this absurd statement if I was there would be: my senses all tell me not to doubt it, so why should I do that? Why should I take your word for something so apparently false? And if we were in matrix situation, why would you be allowed to expose this fact?? You should just be erased “off our screen”/brain! And then, not able to hold my self any longer, I’d probably break down laughing! :) :)

2) (5:30) “There’s no scientific evidence what-so-ever for consciousness, because there’s no way of measuring it,….no actual experiment we can do to prove someone is conscious ”
------a) Evidence is needed where the object of research is literally invisible or absent. Consciousness is not absent and it’s effects (self awareness, awareness of surroundings, decision making, memory, feelings, etc.) are realized by all and are visible in our mind, as well as “outside of our mind” by others! I am taking about an event, not how we perceive it.
b) Consciousness is also measured by neuroscientists as well (See “The Spiritual Brain” or any other on this). A fundamental mistake here is disconnecting consciousness form its effects. When we measure its effects, we measure -in that sense- *the purpose/s and expression of the source*, hence consciousness itself, although not its essence, that is, its initial “spark of existence” (yet).
c) Consciousness is self evident. Let’s not become ridiculous when scrutinizing the existence of the facts of our reality, reality in general. This is where New Age adherents receive much of their “information” and science may become deceptive.

3) (6:25) “Consciousness is clearly very variable according to the observer.”
-----No. Consciousness is something different form its expressions. Its expressions are subjective, not the source itself (consciousness). Compare it to a radio (the source) and the songs played from different stations on it.

5) (6:45) “We don’t need consciousness to explain the universe!”
is a contradiction with his following statement:
(7:00) “Yet without consciousness there would be no science”.

6) (27:40 and after) This next one is a tricky one. A big leap into wrong conclusions! He disagrees with the notion -he calls an assumption- “Matter is insinient”, based on his following ASSUMPTION (!) presented in his question: “How does matter come out of something that is totally absolutely unconscious??”
a) To begin with where does he objectively realize consciousness? In his brain. He cannot realize it somewhere else (its outward effects is another thing). Based on this fact though, he expands his hypothesis to all the universe.
b) His question is actually “saying” that our consciousness comes from matter, so matter cannot be unconscious! Although this is logical, it is based on his false assumption, thus is wrong! Do you see where his false assumption is? *Consciousness comes from matter!*NO IT DOESN’T!!Consciousness is derivative of the soul something “near death experiences (NDE)” and “out of body experiences (OBE)”, prove beyond reasonable doubt! People are conscious of their existence and their surrounding outside the material body as well! This is something the Bible (long before) in speaking of the departure of the soul form one’s body has claimed, and apostle Paul was of course aware of when he said:
2Co 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven.
So, getting back to the film, on this false assumption, he concludes, that matter is conscious! He does now what Christians always knew, matter is not all there is!

7) So he builds on this wrong idea of his, and says:
(33:20-33:46) “Consciousness is in everything”, something he gives no proof of!

8. (36:40) “The delusion that the appearance in the mind is the thing itself”
----Another generalization. He calls it a delusion but this is completely wrong. When you e.g. look at a chair, you are looking at the thing itself, maybe not in it's actual colour(one might point out), but in shape! The proof that what we are seeing is actually there and has the shape we perceive, is given to us:
*when we approach the chair and touch it, move it, sit on it.
*other people seeing the chair give exactly the same testimony as to the shape and existence of the chair.
So, indeed, the thing itself is mostly (if we leave out colour) what we experience in our mind.

9) (41:45) “The only thing I can say for certain about you is that there is consciousness. Just as that is the only thing you could say about your self.”
-----Nonsense! He is restricting existence to what eyesight perceives, neglecting the other senses! Is he serious?
“The only certainty is that there is consciousness.”
No. A material unconscious world is all around us. As science points out as well.
10) (42:30) see contradiction there. Notice that “and yet”.
11) (43:00) He calls “an objective reality” an assumption. This is just absurd!!!!!! It is a tricky term to begin with. I mean, reality is neither objective nor subjective, reality simply is! It is how we perceive it, that can be labeled objective or subjective. But even so, based on senses all humans have, and having agreed to a definition of “objectiveness”, we can all be objective in perceiving the existence of many parts of reality, while disagree on other of its parts. For example again, we can all cut ourselves with a knife. The objective reality would be:
* on object
* that can cut us
* making us bleed
This is something everyone on the planet will testify it is true. This is an objective reality. Ok we can blabber about what its color “actually” is, but other than that the knife is still there, so is the blood and pain caused by the cut.
This particular statement by the way, contradicts his following statement:

I kept hoping for him to go a little deeper... or at least when it ended I had that frustrating sense that it wasn't finished... I suppose, like he said, we're only at the beginning of this new frontier.

I just wonder, is he suggesting that the outside world, while merely a creation of our consciousness, is solid and unchanging because it exists also in the consciousness of others, and that is what we are perceiving? Thats why we, simply by manipulating our consciousness, can't manipulate the world? So then he must be suggesting that our consciousness is all connected?

I'll have to watch it again to see if I missed anything... but I was very impressed with the way he simplified a lot of the theories that have been floating messily around for ages, and aligned them beautifully.

1. We are all inside a creation that has already taken place. All discoveries,innovations and breakthroughs are nothing but realization of things that already exists. As such everything in our life is a constant learning experience with only one purpose - "Ultimate Awareness" of that is already there. Our whole life is nothing but a reverse journey of understanding things we already have within ourselves. Its all about self-discovery. A short story I can put it up to make this realization a little more clearer. There was a person who once found a stone on the road. He took it home and started cutting and chopping pieces of it with knives and blades. He kept doing it for a month. One day his friends visited him and saw the stone. Looking astonished they told him that he created a magificient sculpt with master artistry.He replied - "I didnt create anything. The sculpt was always there. I just chipped off the rough edges".

2. We live in a timeless world.If the first realization is correct then I can coherently say that there is no past,present or future. Time is like a movie - its keeps playing and playing , while we keep experiencing every moment but in real the movie is already made, We are all just watching the recording and experiencing it as if its all happening here right now infront our eyes.The totality of the present moment is the sum of all actions you have taken so far and that are you going to take in the so called 'future' of yours. Irrelevant of which tense we are in, our creation cycle has already taken place. Thus this second realization left me with a third BIG realization.

3. If everything has already happened then everything that exists has a purpose of existence along with a written destination supporting that purpose. Then how come we can say that we have free will and guided by choice ?? Doesnt that mean every choice we make has been already decided for us to make ?? It further doubts my mind that are we really anything real at all. Or just like software program with complex algorithms. Though I sound a little too far fetched but this can be a possibility too.

Actually nothing is real! Everything all ready happened! There is no past, present, and future. Our collective consciousness forms our reality. To use an analogy, by pulling out pictures if you will, which are probabilities, and using our reference of time to give motion. I will not use Quantum Physics in this, I am trying to keep it simple.

Max,
Why do you discard it? Because it's wrong or somehow erroneous to attempt to answer the question of consciousness using our current scientific understanding of the universe? Because it's silly to suggest that consciousness has anything to do with quantum physics? Because it's wrong to question the nature of reality?
I take theories like this with a grain of salt, but I know even you can't deny that there's something fundamental about consciousness which we just can't quite put our finger on, if not because it is the source of reality, then because it is the basis through we which we percieve reality. At least Russell is trying to come up with a solution, rather than just pushing the idea of consciousness out of the way simply because science can't explain it. I find it very close-minded to poo-poo this sort of thinking just because it goes against the current scientific paradigm of a primary reality. Nevertheless, your critical perception of the documentary is not to be disrespected; we must all consider each alternative explanation to a phenomenon (so what's YOUR alternative explanation, eh?)